Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LLANELLI BOROUGH COUNCIL (DAFEN ESTUARY) BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.

Read the Third time, and passed.

CATTEWATER RECLAMATION BILL

LONDON LOCAL AUTHORITIES BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

GREATER MANCHESTER (LIGHT RAPID TRANSIT SYSTEM) (No. 4) BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time, and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION AND SCIENCE

Teachers

Mr. Bellingham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to raise the status and professionalism of teachers; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): The Government are committed to raising the status and professionalism of teachers. Our proposals to establish an independent review body for teachers' pay and conditions are intended to reinforce this. The end of collective bargaining and poor industrial relations in education will raise still further the esteem in which the teaching profession is held.

Mr. Bellingham: Does my right hon. and learned. Friend agree that teachers need greater status and more public esteem? Is he aware that recently I met members of the National Union of Teachers from my constituency who told me that they had made various representations to him? Can he comment on those representations and on his reply?

Mr. Clarke: I have repeatedly confirmed that it is necessary to build up the public esteem and the self-esteem of the profession. I have had discussions with NUT representatives and heard their ideas. I have mainly discussed the pay review body with them and have sought to persuade them that its establishment will enable them to build up a career structure for their members and enable their members to be rewarded in the light of the advice of

an independent body. It will also turn us away from the history of bad relations which has damaged the public reputation of the profession.
The other five trade unions are quite satisfied—as I believe, are the majority of NUT members. The introduction of the pay review body will be a valuable step forward for the profession.

Sir Rhodes Boyson: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that one way to raise the status and morale of teachers is to ensure that every curriculum committee set up by his Department has on it a majority of practising teachers, rather than advisers and organisers who live far away from the scene?

Mr. Clarke: It is important that there should be active and practising teachers on all these bodies and, most important of all, that the bodies pay particular attention to all the advice that they receive from practising teachers, but it is going a bit far to say that practising teachers must be in the majority. Apart from anything else, there is always a danger in thinking that all teachers agree on these matters. My right hon. Friend will know as well as I do that the more teachers one talks to, the more one realises that there is a wide range of opinion in the profession about the best methods of testing and assessing children.

Mr. Skinner: Is the Secretary of State aware that the status and professionalism of teachers would be increased if the Government got off their backs, stopped attacking their pay claims and stopped interfering, while allowing the heads of privatised industries to make money hand over fist? One of them had a pay increase of 66 per cent.—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member is miles wide of the question.

Mr. Skinner: Let us have less of the double standards. If the Government can turn a blind eye to such pay increases for chairmen of privatised industries, they can get off the teachers' backs.

Mr. Clarke: I do not approve of the scale of some of the pay rises in the private sector, but neither am I responsible for them. We have implemented the advice of the independent advisory committee which gives all teachers a 9·5 per cent. increase this year and head teachers and deputy head teachers 12·75 per cent. this year. That is far greater than the usual pay increase for the vast majority of people or for those in the public sector. It is right that teachers should have that increase because of the work that they are putting in at the moment and because of the regard in which we hold them.

Speech Therapy

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he has taken to estimate how many statemented children require speech therapy; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Michael Fallon): The identification of the special educational needs of children is the responsibility of local education authorities. Centrally held statistics on children's statements of special educational needs do not break them down by type of learning difficulty.

Mr. Thurnham: Does my hon. Friend accept the appeal court judgment in the Lancashire case that schools now have a duty to provide speech therapy and rather than its being left to the discretion of the local authority?

Mr. Fallon: Yes. I recently made it clear that if speech therapy is prescribed for educational reasons, local education authorities are under a duty to provide it; if health authorities which are asked to arrange it are unable to do so, the local education authorities must provide it.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Is the Minister not concerned about the report issued yesterday by Mencap, which said that arrangements for children with learning difficulties leave a lot to be desired, including those for speech therapy and the problems of young people when they leave special schools after the age of 19? Does the Minister have any proposals to deal with the views of Mencap and others?

Mr. Fallon: As the hon. Gentleman will know, local education authorities have a clear duty under the Education Act 1981 to ensure that the provision statemented for such children is made and that the necessary resources are provided. My Department is working with the Department of Health to secure better deployment of, among others, speech therapists.

Sir Bernard Braine: Surely my hon. Friend is aware that there is considerable concern in many constituencies—and certainly in mine—at the lack of information about the number of children who need to be statemented. Has he made any estimates of the number of speech therapists required to meet what many of us know to be a real need?

Mr. Fallon: My right hon. Friend is right. The number of speech therapists has nearly doubled, from 1,510 in 1979 to 2,810 in 1989, but we are working with the Department of Health to secure better deployment of speech therapists, to make greater use of assistant speech therapists, and to promote more even professional practice among local education authorities.

Pre-school Places

Mr. Harry Barnes: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to ensure that every three and four-year-old has the opportunity of a pre-school place.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Mr. Tim Eggar): It is for local authorities to determine the extent and form of their provision for these children.

Mr. Barnes: Why is it that the top 15 providers of nursery education for three to four-year-olds are all Labour authorities, which provide more than 70 per cent. of places, whereas of the 15 authorities providing the least nursery education for three to four-year-olds, one has no overall control and the other 14 are all Conservative controlled? How do the Government intend to ensure that Conservative local authorities live up to their obligations and make use of the available funds for nursery education?

Mr. Eggar: One of the reasons why Labour authorities have provided nursery education is that the Government have made available considerable funds for them to do just that. The hon. Gentleman should know that there are now 150,000 more three and four-year-olds in school than there

were 10 years ago. This year alone, we have increased the amount that we make available to local authorities to spend on nursery education by £140 million. That is our record.

Mr. Dunn: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Labour party claims that universal nursery provision can be met by the abolition of the city technology college programme? Is he also aware that that would raise only £15 million, whereas the cost of universal nursery provision would be more than £1·5 billion? Is there not a strong case for giving the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) remedial maths tuition?

Mr. Eggar: There are many other good reasons for giving the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) remedial mathematics tuition. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. A month ago, I asked the hon. Member for Durham, North-West (Ms. Armstrong) whether she was prepared to state from the Labour Front Bench that the Labour party was committed to introducing universal nursery education and, if so, whether she would get the endorsement of the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett). We have had nothing but silence from the hon. Lady on the issue. She owes the House and the country an explanation of what her spending plans are.

Ms. Armstrong: May we have a commitment from the Government about their determination, or otherwise, to offer young children the chance of a nursery place, which is seen as a right in many other European countries? Do the Government support nursery education?

Mr. Eggar: We have made our position clear. There are 150,000 more children in nursery education than there were when the Labour party was in power, and we have made an extra £140 million available for nursery education this year compared with last year. That is a record of which we are rightly proud.

Primary Testing

Mr. Viggers: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a further statement on the testing of children at the age of seven years.

Mr. Eggar: The first national tests for seven-year-olds in English, mathematics and science are now complete and a full evaluation is under way.

Mr. Viggers: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the tests are meant not to be competitive between pupils but on the contrary, to provide a most useful appraisal of their skills in reading, writing, arithmetic and basic science so that their future education can be planned in each case?

Mr. Eggar: I can certainly confirm that. The tests are diagnostic and are intended to identify the strengths and weaknesses of seven-year-old pupils so that teachers, pupils and parents can work together to remedy weaknesses and further to strengthen the strengths.

Mr. Fatchett: Is it not clear from this year's tests that the assessment system told teachers little new about the children in their charge, involved a great deal of teacher and student time, diverted attention from other children in the same class, and cost the taxpayer a great deal of money for Government experimentation? Against that background, would it not have been sensible for the Minister,


to avoid the embarrassment and criticism that he faced at the headteachers' conference, to take the advice given to him by his right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Sir R. Boyson) and to listen, for once, to the advice coming from teachers and to use the expertise of individual teachers, rather than simply going ahead with a scheme based on the Government's own misplaced and outdated ideology?

Mr. Eggar: I was under the possible misapprehension that the Labour party was committed to raising standards in education and to external testing of children at age seven, 11, 14 and 16. If Labour Members have changed their tune, they had better say so publicly.

Mr. David Shaw: Does my hon. Friend agree that one of the main purposes of the tests is to test the effectiveness and quality of the education provided by local authorities, by the teachers, and by the governing bodies which run our schools, whereas under the last Labour Government there was no effective monitoring of the quality of education in schools?

Mr. Eggar: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The national curriculum makes it clear what we want children to be taught. Assessment and testing, which are integral to the national curriculum, are the only way available in which to assess whether pupils have learnt what has been taught.

Student Loans

Mr. Canavan: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how many representations he has received this year about the student loan scheme.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Alan Howarth): I have received very few letters about loans this year. The scheme has been successfully set up and is running smoothly. More than 180,000 students have so far applied for loans.

Mr. Canavan: Is the Minister aware that many students find it difficult to continue their studies due to poverty resulting from the introduction of the student loan scheme and the first ever freezing of student grants from this autumn, together with the Government's decision to stop students receiving housing benefit and their disqualification from receiving income support and hardship allowance during the summer vacation? Bearing in mind that the unit administration costs of the loan scheme are more than double the Government's original estimate, is it not about time the Government realised the error of their ways, scrapped the disastrous loan scheme and replaced it with a far fairer system of student grants?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman overlooks the fact that the combined uprated grant and the new loan will increase student support by 25 per cent. this year. If students were facing the kind of hardship that the hon. Gentleman suggests, it would be very odd if student numbers continued to expand as quickly as they are expanding now. Applications through the Universities Central Council on Admissions and the Polytechnics central admissions system are up 8 per cent. this year. The loan to which each student is entitled, which this year is £420 outside London, is appreciably more than the average benefit claimed, which we estimate at £327. With

regard to the costs of running the system, it is absurd to suggest that the initial establishment costs, which are an investment for the whole life of the scheme, should be a measure of the costs per account of each individual student loan. Obviously, as the number of students taking out loans steadily increases, as is happening now, the unit cost per account will steadily decline.

Mr. Pawsey: Can my hon. Friend confirm that in 1979 one in eight of our young people were in advanced education while today's figure is one in five? Can he also confirm that more than 1 million of our young people are in advanced education and that enrolments increased last year by 10 per cent? Does he agree that those figures vindicate the Government's position with respect to advanced education?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. He draws attention to an expansion of personal opportunity and a change in our society of the first order of importance, comparable in importance with the expansion of home ownership over which the Government are presiding.

Mr. Andrew Smith: Will the Minister confirm that among the representations that he has received were representations from the Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals drawing his attention to the fact that, on the basis of an extensive survey, the unit cost to institutions of issuing the certificates under the student loans scheme is running at £7 per certificate, compared with the £3·50 that the institutions are reimbursed by the Student Loans Company? Will the Minister instruct the company to reimburse the institutions fairly for the administration costs, especially as the banks were to be paid a £12·50 handling charge before they pulled out of the scheme? Or is higher education to be short changed yet again, as it has been so disgracefully by the Government's refusal to compensate institutions for the increase in value added tax?

Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is perfectly right. Representations have been made to us that the reimbursement of administrative costs provided by the Student Loans Company might be increased. We are, of course, considering those representations. There has been a wide diversity of administrative practice across the range of higher education institutions and a wide diversity of costs. We shall look to reimburse institutions on the basis of the most efficient practice.

Mr. Amos: Does my hon. Friend agree that as the student loans scheme has enabled more students to enter higher education this year, and as students do not have to repay the loan until the year after they have graduated and at a zero real rate of interest, that is a very good deal for students and can in no way be construed as depriving them of the opportunity to enter higher education?

Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend very fairly points out that the student loans scheme is a humane and practical scheme which offers students additional support well above the previous level of support and at a zero real rate of interest. Students only have to repay in real terms the money that they borrowed in the first place. That contrasts interestingly with the terms offered by the banks. It has been rather gratifying that the banks have responded to the stimulus of the competition provided by the Student Loans Company by offering relatively advantageous


borrowing terms to students while they are studying. However, the repayment terms compare very unfavourably with the repayment terms under our scheme.

Schools (Repair and Maintenance)

Mr. Ronnie Campbell: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what plans he has to deal with the backlog of repair and maintenance in schools; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Fallon: Support for recurrent spending on education, including repairs and maintenance, totals £17·5 billion this year, an increase of 16 per cent. over the comparable total for last year. Annual capital guidelines for schools total £472 million, an increase of 15 per cent. on last year. It is for individual local education authorities and school governors to determine their expenditure priorities within their total resources.

Mr. Campbell: Is the Minister aware that the Northumberland education authority has accrued a repair bill of £10 billion during the lifetime of this Government? [Interruption.] I am sorry—£10 million. Is the Minister further aware that school teachers in the county of Northumberland have been given plastic buckets to catch rain coming in through school roofs?

Mr. Fallon: I am aware of the problems of Northumberland education authority, including its difficulties with timber-framed structures. That is why we have increased Northumberland's capital guideline from £1·9 million last year to £3·5 million this year.

Mr. Dover: Is the Minister aware that the best plan that he ever had to clear the backlog of repairs was to have local management of schools and to enable schools to look forward to the opting-out system? It is only when schools have control of their own funds that they can do the repairs that they badly need to have done.

Mr. Fallon: My hon. Friend is quite right. Giving schools their own budgets is the fastest way of ensuring that money allocated for schools is actually spent on schools. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the average amount being held back per pupil this year is £230. That is the local education authority tax on every pupil, which is being spent on so-called central services when it could be spent in the classroom.

Mr. Matthew Taylor: The Minister knows that in allocating funds to local authorities for school building programmes there are real problems in areas such as my own, with aging Victorian schools, particularly primary schools, without school halls and without inside toilets. Year after year, those schools have not been getting funds because they are third in the order of priorities and therefore the problem has never been tackled. Again, last year, we had £6 million to spend and £100 million problem growing, so there was another year of decline. Will the Minister tackle that problem? When will he conclude his review of the minimum standards for school building, or is he planning to cut them and wait until after the general election to admit it?

Mr. Fallon: I understand the problems of local education authorities in areas such as that which the hon. Gentleman represents. That is why we have ensured an overall increase of 15 per cent. in schools' capital and a

specific 50 per cent. increase in the capital category specially allocated for improvement and replacement work, which this year has gone up by 50 per cent. to £109 million.

Mr. Devlin: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Dover) that local management of schools is the best way to deal with the backlog of repairs. Is my hon. Friend the Minister aware that in Cleveland, the LEA has let three-year contracts to the direct labour organisation for all school maintenance and repairs? That has been done on a cost-neutral basis to frustrate the Government's policy of delegating budgets to schools. What does the Minister intend to do about that?

Mr. Fallon: I can assure my hon. Friend that we are going to do something about that. The contracts were entered into before local management of schools began. As soon as each of those contracts expires, the amount concerned must be delegated down to the head and the governors, who we believe are able to arrange maintenance and repairs much more cost effectively than can be achieved by the local education authority through its direct labour organisation.

Mr. Straw: In a recent magazine interview, the Secretary of State said:
I don't believe the figure of a £3 to £4 billion backlog of repairs",
and described that figure as "campaigning nonsense". As that figure was based on his own Department's survey of school buildings, will the Minister say what the correct figure is, or does he not know?

Mr. Fallon: In the four years since that survey was carried out, £2 billion has already been spent in clearing the backlog. The amount spent on repairs and maintenance per pupil has risen from £28 in 1979 to £64 in 1989—a real terms increase of about 20 per cent.

Literacy and Numeracy

Mr. Speller: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what is his estimate of literacy and numeracy levels at 16 years of age (a) nationally and (b) in the south-west; and what were the comparable rates 30, 20 and 10 years ago.

Mr. Eggar: Information is not available in the form or over the period requested. However, GCSE results in English and mathematics indicate a welcome improvement in pupil performance since the examination was introduced in 1988.

Mr. Speller: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is disappointing that we do not have the figures to work on? What is he doing to improve standards of literacy and numeracy, which are perceived by the general public to be lower rather than higher as the years go by?

Mr. Eggar: I understand my hon. Friend's point, which is why we introduced the national curriculum and insist on rigorous external tests for those aged seven, 11, 14 and 16. That is why my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State announced that he was looking into how the teaching of reading is taught to teachers on training courses. That, and a number of other measures are


designed to improve standards of numeracy and literacy, and the way reading, writing and arithmetic are taught in schools.

Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Does my hon. Friend accept that, although the statistics are not readily available at present, his recent decision to oblige schools to publish, in common form, their public examination results will produce that information, which will be widely welcomed by parents, many teachers and many schools?

Mr. Eggar: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and congratulate him on his ten-minute Bill, which added a spur to our efforts to ensure that the measures I announced a few days ago would be introduced.

Primary Schools, Staffordshire

Mr. Knox: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science how much was spent per pupil at primary schools in Staffordshire in the most recent year for which figures are available; and what was the comparable figure in 1978–79, at constant prices.

Mr. Fallon: Staffordshire spent £1,050 per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89, the latest year for which information is available. On the same price basis, Staffordshire spent £815 per nursery and primary pupil in 1978–79. Therefore, Staffordshire's spending per nursery and primary pupil in 1988–89 was some 29 per cent. higher in real terms than in 1978–79.

Mr. Knox: Does my hon. Friend agree that those figures refute absolutely Opposition charges of underfunding primary school education in Staffordshire since the Government came to office?

Mr. Fallon: Yes, absolutely. The Staffordshire figures clearly demonstrate the Government's continuing commitment to funding the education service and the substantial increases that have taken place over a 10-year period.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On the question of primary school funding in Staffordshire, if it is the Government's policy to cut taxes, how much will have to be cut from the Department of Education and Science budget? Perhaps the Minister can relate those cuts to his proposed expenditure in Staffordshire in future.

Mr. Fallon: The hon. Gentleman might not have noticed that, at the same time as increasing education spending, we have reduced the direct rate of taxation. That is in direct contrast to the Labour party policy which would tax teachers more heavily than they are taxed at present.

Reading Standards

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science when he will be responding to the Education, Science and Arts Committee's third report of Session 1990–91 on standards of reading in primary schools.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: Soon, Sir.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that if we want children to learn to read quickly and efficiently, one of the key components is for teachers to listen to their pupils while they read. Has the Minister

considered the problem of organising lessons so that teachers can listen to 30 pupils reading in class, one after the other? Does he accept that many teachers have found it extremely difficult to fulfil that commitment during the past six or seven weeks while also carrying out the testing of seven-year-olds?

Mr. Clarke: I entirely accept that it is important that teachers listen to individual pupils reading. That is a key part of the tests for seven-year-olds that have just been carried out. I agree that we have had representations from teachers about the difficulties of managing that exercise and many schools have had to employ supply teachers while that is being done. We shall take all representations carefully into account when deciding on the form of next year's tests for seven-year-old but we cannot give up arrangements whereby each pupil reads to his or her teacher if we are to ensure that reading standards are of the required level in primary schools.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that primary school children's reading is greatly facilitated if they have an opportunity to attend a nursery school? Does he recall the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), when junior Education Minister, saying that nursery education was not a high priority and that the Labour Government would not increase funding to it?

Mr. Clarke: For many years, successive Governments have not been able to insist on the provision of universal nursery education because the cost is very high. However, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the experience in Wandsworth, where the local education authority is funded on the same basis as other inner London boroughs but is able to provide nursery education for all three and four-year-olds who want it because of the sensible way in which it has organised the finances of the remainder of its education provision.

Grammar, Spelling and Punctuation

Mr. Gerald Howarth: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science what steps he is taking to ensure that school children have a proper understanding of grammar, spelling and punctuation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: We are progressively implementing the national curriculum requirements for English. Spelling will be taken into account in the marking of GCSE examinations in 1991 in the usual way. I am awaiting advice from the School Examinations and Assessment Council about what additional steps can be taken in public examinations in 1992 and in subsequent years. In my opinion, the teaching of grammar and the correction of spelling and grammatical errors will resume their proper place in the classroom if they are known to be relevant to the marking of public examinations.

Mr. Howarth: My right hon. and learned Friend's remarks are welcome. Is he aware that a survey conducted in Birmingham by City 2000 found that there was widespread concern among employers in the city at the poor basic quality of skills in grammar, spelling and punctuation, particularly among support staff? Does he agree that, with the apostrophe being subjected to the most intolerable abuse and split infinitives everywhere, the


biggest favour that we can do young people today is to give them a thorough knowledge of the form and structure of the wonderful English language?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's description of the experience of employers and others in the west midlands is borne out by the experience of many other people, who feel that standards of spelling and grammatical use of English in this country have been deteriorating in recent years. It is important that we restore those standards and express parts of the English national curriculum will enable us to do just that.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Does the Secretary of State accept from someone who has trained as a learning support teacher that, where children are diagnosed through the correct administration of diagnostic testing, the urgent need throughout the education system is to ensure that resourcing is made available and that every primary school has access to a learning support teacher to enable children to cope with the difficulties that they experience?

Mr. Clarke: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's support of what she calls diagnostic testing and the need, after such testing, to help particular children, which is the basis of our current policy. It is also important that all schools are properly resourced, but all the evidence, including that from Her Majesty's inspectorate, shows that there is no direct correlation between the resourcing of a school and standards of performance in reading, spelling, grammar, and so on. Well-organised classes are required and they are achieved in well-resourced as well as less well-resourced schools. Organisation is the key to the whole subject.

Mr. Allason: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, although grammar, spelling and punctuation are extraordinarily important, they are also sometimes indicative of learning difficulties in a particular area? Does he accept that Devon, although not apparently an area of difficulty, has special problems and that some parts of Devon might be classified as areas of social deprivation? Will he bear that in mind when he considers the grant for next year?

Mr. Clarke: In distributing grant to local education authorities we must take a variety of matters into account, including social deprivation. I have no doubt that we shall continue to do so when we make allocations to Devon and other counties this year. Again, success or otherwise in teaching children to read does not seem to be closely related to the children's social deprivation. There are some extremely successful schools in deprived areas and less successful schools in affluent areas. That is why it is so important to get the method of teaching, the curriculum and the testing system right, which is what the Government are doing.

Mr. Hain: Does the Secretary of State accept that his words amount to no more than hot air? The reality is of attacks on teachers, attacks on school budgets as local management of schools bites, attacks on standards and the undermining of education standards. When he leaves office he will leave a legacy that amounts to nothing more than criminal neglect.

Mr. Clarke: That rather curious outburst seems to have nothing to do with the question. I trust that the hon. Gentleman was at least capable of spelling it properly

when he committed it to paper. We have spent this question session describing the increased resources in schools and their increased achievements. I refer the hon. Gentleman to the spectacular improvement in the number of people going onto further and higher education. Only one in eight people could go on to higher education when we came into office, one in five now do, one in four will shortly and one in three will go on to higher education by the end of the century. That is all solidly based on real improvement in education standards in this country, forwarded by our education reforms.

Grant-maintained Schools

Mr. Butler: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science whether he proposes to take any action to accelerate the trend towards grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The number of schools seeking and acquiring grant-maintained status is already increasing very rapidly. In the past sixth months alone, the number of schools voting in favour of seeking grant-maintained status has more than doubled. We shall continue to urge schools to consider the opportunities afforded by grant-maintained status.

Mr. Butler: Is it not the case that the new GM schools have proved popular with parents, teachers and pupils? Can my right hon. Friend say whether standards have risen in such schools?

Mr. Clarke: So far in the 88 GM schools that we have, my hon. Friend's assertion can be supported. As far as I can tell, all those running grant-maintained schools have found that the experience is popular with staff, parents and pupils. Obviously, in time we will be able to tell—from reports by Her Majesty's inspectorate and elsewhere—what effect they have on standards. However, it must be beneficial to raise staff morale in that way and to give complete control over policy in the school to headteachers and governors who are bound to be responsive to parents in the way that they carry out their duties.

Mr. Straw: Since only 14 per cent. of schools in the pipeline for opting out are in Labour-controlled education authority areas, while 66 per cent. are in Conservative-controlled areas, does not the evidence clearly show that parents in Labour-controlled LEAs have great confidence in the ability of their LEAs to run their education service? How can the Secretary of State come out with such nonsense about the number of grant-maintained schools growing rapidly, as he has just done, when the total number opting out or in the pipeline—236—is less than 1 per cent. of the country's 24,000 maintained schools?

Mr. Clarke: It is foolish for the hon. Gentleman to reduce every aspect of managing schools to a party-political argument about Labour and Conservative-controlled authorities. However, it is relevant that in the areas served by Labour-controlled authorities the most intense pressures are put on headteachers, governors and staff not to opt for grant-maintained status. That is because the Labour party is especially wedded to the defence of town hall bureaucracy in that as in many other areas. As regards the figures, the hon. Gentleman keeps making extraordinary claims that somehow the process is slowing up, when it is accelerating at a remarkable rate, as


he knows; 12 months ago there were only seven ballots pending and now there are more than 50. All the time that I have been in office, the rate at which grant-maintained applications are being received has steadily accelerated. When we return to office and people no longer fear pressure from Labour authorities, those applications will become a flood.

Primary School Testing

Sir Anthony Durant: To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Science if he will make a statement on the progress of testing for seven year-old primary school children.

Mr. Eggar: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Mr. Viggers).

Sir Anthony Durant: On the principle of testing, given that some teachers have expressed the view that the tests are complicated and occupy a great deal of classroom time, will my hon. Friend review that when he is looking at the future of testing seven-year-olds?

Mr. Eggar: I very much agree with my hon. Friend about the need for testing. Like the tests for 11, 14 and 16-year-olds, the tests for seven-year-olds must be simple, rigorous and objective. It is very much with that in mind that we are currently evaluating all the evidence that we have received from individual schools and teachers. Four conferences are taking place around the country and we are gathering evidence through the School Examinations and Assessment Council, the National Foundation for Educational Research, and Her Majesty's inspectorate. When we have put all that together, we shall be able to conduct a proper analysis of this year's national pilot scheme and to introduce our proposals for the testing of seven-year-olds next year.

Mr. Rees: If such testing reveals bad results from a particular child, is the Minister satisfied that schools have the necessary processes for finding out why, for example, because of dyslexia? Whose job is it to ensure that local authorities provide proper classes and special teachers for dyslexic children because, whether under Labour or Conservative authorities, the facilities in this country are not good enough?

Mr. Eggar: I share the right hon. Gentleman's concern about dyslexia. For years the education establishment has refused to accept dyslexia as a problem. Recognition of it is long overdue. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Fallon) has made clear our commitment to try to help dyslexic children.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Ron Davies: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today. This evening I hope to have an audience of Her Majesty the Queen.

Mr. Davies: Now that it is clear that the privatisation of the gas, electricity and water industries has led to bigger salaries for the bosses and bigger bills for the consumers, with no improvement in the level of service, how can the Prime Minister continue to argue that the privatisation of those industries has been in the public interest?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that much of what 1 he hon. Gentleman says is incorrect. It is precisely because Whitehall has stopped interfering in the privatised companies that electricity prices have fallen in recent years, that gas prices have fallen and that British Telecom's prices have fallen.

Mr. Onslow: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that British troops will not leave Iraq until suitable assurances have been given to the Kurdish population?

The Prime Minister: Yes, I am happy to give my right hon. Friend that assurance. We have now met most of the humanitarian needs of the Kurds in Iraq. The United Nations has taken responsibility for the humanitarian relief operation in northern Iraq. It was never our intention to keep a permanent troop presence on the ground there, but before we or the other allies withdraw, we will need to have several things in place: first, an effective United Nations force on the ground; secondly, clear warnings to Iraq that any renewed repression will meet the severest response; thirdly, a continuing deterrent military presence in the region to back up those warnings and fourthly, the maintenance of sanctions against Iraq. Without that, we will not leave.

Mr. Hattersley: In the light of the Government's constant call for restraint, will the Prime Minister join me in condemning the salary increase of 58 per cent. that has been awarded to the chief executive of National Power?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Hattersley: I am delighted by that not unexpected news—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is taking up a lot of time.

Mr. Hattersley: As the Prime Minister is against the increase, is not he now required to explain why the Government did not use their 40 per cent. shareholding to prevent it, and what action he will take before the annual general meeting?

The Prime Minister: Certainly. I am happy to remind the right hon. Gentleman that it was made clear in the prospectus that the Government had no intention of using their shareholding to intervene in financial decisions. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we did that for good reasons.

Mr. Hattersley: In this as in so many other matters, the Prime Minister says one thing but is not prepared to act to back up his platitudes. If he had given me an honest answer to my original question, he would be prepared to take some action now. If he is not prepared to take the action which is within his power, no one will believe that his condemnation was anything other than feeble public relations.

The Prime Minister: If people want to hear something that is feeble, they should listen to what the right hon.
Gentleman has just said. I made it perfectly clear when I was Chief Secretary some years ago that I do not believe that excessive salary increases are right. That still remains my view. We explained perfectly clearly when we privatised those companies that it was in the interests of the users of them. It is for that reason that electricity prices have fallen over the past seven years in real terms, that privatised gas prices have fallen by 11 per cent., that British Telecom's prices have fallen by 20 per cent. and that 95 per cent. of British Telecom's call boxes now work. None of that happened when it was in public ownership.

Sir William Shelton: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House what he thinks would happen to the British economy if the basic rate of income tax were increased to 40p in the pound?

The Prime Minister: It would undoubtedly do very great damage to the economy. It would cut incentives, it would recreate the brain drain and recreate all the economic difficulties that we had during the 1970s when the Labour party pursued policies of precisely that kind.

Mr. Ashdown: As the Prime Minister seems prepared to isolate Britain in Europe over the word federalism, perhaps he will tell us what he thinks federalism means.

The Prime Minister: It would be interesting if the Europeans would tell us what they mean by federalism. In a treaty text we need to have language the meaning of which is clear. Federalism in the European Community means different things to different people. If it implies a central Government for the federation, that is not what people in this country want. If it means decentralisation, it sounds like subsidiarity, which many people in this country would find more acceptable. But in no way could we permit that word to appear in the treaty until or unless it is clear what it means and that it does not mean the centralisation of power.

Sir Charles Morrison: Can my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government have no intention of introducing a statutory minimum wage? Will he also say what effect a statutory minimum wage would have?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. There is no doubt that as many trade union leaders have testified, a statutory minimum wage would dramatically increase unemployment in this country, as it has done in some other European countries.

Sir Patrick Duffy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Sir P. Duffy: Does the Prime Minister accept that if the hope, now I am happy to say, widely entertained, of a new way forward between Ireland and England is to be realised —[Interruption]—from the present talks over Northern Ireland, the best qualities that can be brought to those talks are first, the resolve that the right hon. Gentleman and Mr. Haughey expressed following their meeting last Friday night and secondly, the staying power displayed throughout by the Prime Minister's right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks. I entirely agree with his

analysis. I should like to pay a tribute to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, whose patience and skill ensured that the talks could begin. We all hope that they will be successful and that they will reach a conclusion that will enable a substantial transfer of power and responsibility to locally elected representatives. It would be a remarkable move forward for Northern Ireland if that were achievable. I hope and believe that it may be done.

Dr. Blackburn: Can my right hon. Friend confirm to the nation today the philosophy that this Government will offer to the people only that which they can afford and will not indulge in wild, exaggerated, uncosted promises?

The Prime Minister: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. I can also give him the assurance that if anyone else offers an uncosted agenda we shall cost it for them.

Mr. Rooker: When the Prime Minister goes for his audience later today will he take the opportunity to have a word with the colonel of the Grenadier Guards who also lives at the same address? In a letter to my constituent, Mr. Fred Crowton, he expressed his support for Sean Povey and his two colleagues getting fair and decent compensation from the Ministry of Defence. Given that the Palace now supports that justified case, why are we waiting for a decision?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman heard what I had to say about that last Thursday and I have nothing to add.

Mrs. Maureen Hicks: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Hicks: Can my right hon. Friend give a guarantee to the House today that his Government will continue to support and fund the Black Country urban development corporation, which has transformed areas of derelict land, created thousands of jobs and already attracted £195 million in private investment? Does he agree that, given the success of the 10 urban development corporations, it would be sheer folly to hand over their powers, as Labour suggests, to local councils? The Labour party suggests that they should be handed over to councils such as Birmingham and Liverpool which have a dreadful reputation and have done so much in the past to damage and hamper economic generation.

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend makes her point with great force and vigour. I agree with what she said about the possible transfer of the powers of the UDCs to local Labour authorities. The Black Country urban development corporation has had a remarkable record in recent years and I hope and believe that it will continue to do so.

Mr. Janner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. and learned Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Janner: For hundreds of thousands of British businesses the word recession has already acquired only one meaning—disaster. What does that word mean to the Prime Minister?

The Prime Minister: The hon. and learned Gentleman is aware of what the Confederation of British Industry, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development—the OECD—and the Government's own forecasts have had to say about the future. All of us expect the economy to turn up in the second half of this year.

Mr. Conway: Does my right hon. Friend accept from one who was loath to support the Single European Act that his conduct during the European negotiations has been superb? As First Lord of the Treasury will he ensure that those who talk to the British people about the dream of a European super-state also understand fully the economic and taxation costs of that dream should it ever become a reality?

The Prime Minister: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend's remarks about an economic super-state in Europe. That is not what the majority of members in the Community wish to see and it is not what we wish to see. It will not be the outcome of the negotiations.

Mr. Nellist: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nellist: Is the Prime Minister aware that 55-year-old Ernest Saunders, the former Guinness chairman, becomes eligible for parole this Friday, having served 10 months of a 30-month sentence in an open prison for the conviction of theft of more than £8 million? However, 71-year-old asthmatic Norman Laws is halfway through a 60-day sentence in the maximum security Durham gaol for non-payment of less than £300 poll tax. Does the Prime Minister think that there is one law for the rich and another for the poor?

The Prime Minister: I do know that the position of many people over the community charge may have been made far worse by the leadership that the hon. Gentleman gave in not paying the community charge. I know also that no one who sits in this House pretending to make the law has any right to break the law.

Mrs. Peacock: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he has the great support of many people in this country in his discussions in Europe? Is he also aware that people are confident that in his future discussions he will not sell them or future generations down the river?

The Prime Minister: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what she said and I assure her that that will be the case.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 25 June.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the Prime Minister will be trying hard not to think about retirement, but is he aware that this country's laws on retirement are in a complete mess, and that we are in danger of losing cases before the European Court on the ground that we discriminate against both men and women through our different retirement ages? There are many men who would like to be able to retire at 60 and many women who would like to go on working after the age of 60. When will we sort out the problem and have a flexible retirement age—one that suits people?

The Prime Minister: That is a problem of some importance, as the hon. Gentleman says. He will know that for some years we have considered the principle of flexible retirement for both men and women. As he rightly added, I have no intention whatever of retiring for many years.

Mr. Gale: Will my right hon. Friend find time today to consider the positive attitude taken by the Minister for Corporate Affairs towards the establishment of a digital European television standard? Will he contrast that attitude with the efforts of the European Commission to throw European taxpayers' money down the drain chasing antiquated technology? Is not the latter activity typical of much antiquated European thinking and is it not right that this country should once again be taking a lead, as in so many other European matters?

The Prime Minister: I fear that my hon. Friend is right about the attitude taken in the Community, but he is also right to praise the activities of my hon. Friend the Minister of State.

Statutory Instruments, &c.

Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I will put together the two motions on statutory instruments.

Ordered,
That the draft Access to Personal Files (Social Services) (Amendment) Regulations 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.
That the draft Access to Personal Files and Medical Reports (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.—[Mr. Wood.]

Points of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. To find any kind of precedent—even an inexact one—for what occurred last night we must go back to 11 December 1974, and the colourful days of Bob Mellish. You, Mr. Speaker, were an Opposition Whip then, so you will remember those days well.
This is a matter for the Chair, and I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I intend no criticism of Mr. Deputy Speaker's decision to allow the closure of the business at half-past two in the morning. The point of order for you is this: do you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, have any right of objection on behalf of the House to refuse amendments that have been devised in the other place, as in this case on the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Bill, which might not have been accepted by the Table Office of the House of Commons because they alter the basic structure of the Bill, so that we have gone through Second Reading and the Committee stage of that Bill on the basis of a false prospectus? The House gave a Second Reading to a Bill very different from that amended by the House of Lords, which was before us last night.
Will you, Mr. Speaker, reflect for 24 hours on the issues involved, and, having done so, make a statement to the House tomorrow?

Mr. Speaker: I do not think that I need do that. Although I was not present at 2.30 this morning, I have had the opportunity to discuss the matter with Mr. Deputy Speaker, who was in the Chair, so I am well aware what went on. The only reason I can rule out of order Lords amendments coming back to the House is if they have financial implications for the House of Commons which have not previously been provided for. Indeed, I shall be doing that later today.

Mr. Tim Devlin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. During the next 24 hours, while you are reflecting on that matter, perhaps you would also reflect on what your position will be if, at the beginning of tomorrow's debate on the European Community, a very large number of Members on both sides of the House rise to speak—and I fully expect that to be the case, given the discussions that I have had with my colleagues of late. Would it be within your power, Mr. Speaker, to mention to the authorities of the House and the usual channels that

the debate is fundamental to the future of the House and to the conduct of the intergovernmental conferences, with a view, perhaps, to extending the debate over two days so that all those hon. Members who wish to speak—there may be 650 of them, for all I know—may have an opportunity to do so?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me. If the hon. Gentleman spoke to his Chief Whip, he would probably get a better answer than I can give him. I am bound to say, however, that although I have not seen the full list of those who wish to participate in tomorrow's debate, I have seen a preliminary list and there are a great many names on it. It would certainly help the House greatly if we had more time.

Mr. Harry Ewing: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I apologise, but I want to refer to the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). I am not quite sure what it is that you will be doing later today. You said that you would be ruling amendments out of order. There can be no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that the amendments accepted last night took the provisions of the Natural Heritage Bill (Scotland) outside the terms of the money resolution. There can be no ifs or buts about that. Is it those amendments that you will be ruling out of order today or if not, what will you be doing? I was not quite sure what you meant.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is on to the right point. The amendments that I shall rule out of order today are those that go beyond the terms of the money resolution. The amendments selected yesterday did not go beyond the terms of the relevant money resolution, or they would not have been selected.

Mr. Stuart Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In relation to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Devlin), can you confirm that, in accordance with the convention of the House, if a former Prime Minister—the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher)—puts her name on the list of speakers in tomorrow's debate, she will have the privilege of being called early?

Mr. Speaker: In making my selection, I have many difficult problems to consider, but it is, indeed, a convention of the House that former Prime Ministers are given some precedence in debate.

Vagrancy (Amendment)

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824.
The history of the Vagrancy Act is a lengthy one. The mischief at which the Act was aimed was not begging per se but vagrancy as a way of life—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members who are not remaining in the Chamber for this matter please leave quietly?

Mr. Hargreaves: Vagrancy as a way of life was considered to be a threat to the economic stability of society.
The black death of 1348 resulted in a shortage of agricultural labour. In order to ensure that those capable of work did not remain idle, a law was passed shortly afterwards stating that giving alms to those deemed capable of work was an offence. An Act passed in 1530 made begging an offence but only if the defendant was fit and able to work. The emphasis was again on prosecuting vagrancy as a way of life.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 was introduced as a measure to deal with specific problems in Britain following the Napoleonic wars. The large numbers of soldiers who arrived, and who were discharged on to the streets with no job and no accommodation, were joined by a massive influx of economic migrants from Ireland and Scotland who travelled to England, and especially London, in search of work. The ancient pass laws were of no use in dealing with the increased numbers of homeless and penniless urban poor. The Vagrancy Act was therefore introduced as a method of dealing with a specific early 19th-century problem.
The Act makes it an offence to sleep on the streets or to beg. In essence, therefore, it is a crime in England and Wales to be homeless or to cadge subsistence money. When the Act was passed, criticism of it centred on the fact that it created a catch-all offence. To sleep on the streets or to beg subsistence became a crime, whatever reason an individual might have had for being in such a predicament. That provision still pertains today.
Until recently it was believed that the Vagrancy Act 1924 had largely withered away through lack of use. In recent years, however, as the number of homeless people sleeping out has risen, the use of the Act has increased dramatically, especially in the Metropolitan police district.
In 1988, in England and Wales, some 573 people were prosecuted and convicted under the Vagrancy Act. In May 1990, the National Association of Probation Officers carried out a survey of the prosecutions under the Act. That survey revealed that 1,250 prosecutions had been dealt with in 14 central London magistrates courts in that year, which represented an enormous leap in the number of prosecutions under the Act, especially in London.
The number of people sleeping out has indeed risen dramatically in recent years—again, especially in London. Homelessness is a great social problem, which only far-reaching policy initiatives can address. The abolition of the Vagrancy Act will not of itself solve the problem. Sleeping out and begging are the result of homelessness; they are social, not criminal, evils, and it is not and should not be the role of criminal law to punish those who have

already been marginalised by their predicament. That applies particularly to the most vulnerable groups— the young and the mentally ill—who have been reduced to life on the streets.
The Vagrancy Act 1824 serves not to alleviate but to compound the problems of those who are forced to sleep out, and to beg to survive. Those who are convicted under the Act are frequently fined; to pay the fine, they have to beg. Other sentences include short periods in prison, probation orders and conditional discharges.
The aquisition of a criminal record further disadvantages the homeless person in the employment and housing markets. In 1980, the Select Committee on Home Affairs concluded that the offence of begging should not be regarded as a means of dealing with the problem of homelessness, but declined to recommend its repeal: it was felt that, if it were repealed, the police would be powerless to act in response to a complaint, or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance.
In 1986, however, Parliament passed the Public Order Act. The Act gives the police powers
to act in response to a complaint or to mitigate a genuine public nuisance".
The very words used by the Home Affairs Select Committee in 1980 as a reason for not recommending 1he repeal of the Vagrancy Act were used in the 1986 Act that gave the police new powers.
On 11 December 1990, it was said in another place that the Act also provided for action against unlicensed pedlars, indecent behaviour on the part of common prostitutes and dishonest fortune tellers; but schedule 1 to the Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1989 repealed the legislation that had created those offences. Surely, whatever arguments there once were for retaining the Vagrancy Act have long since been made redundant.
Let there be no misunderstanding. My Bill does not seek to protect those who use violence or intimidation to obtain money; that offence is covered by section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986. It does not seek to protect the professional beggars whom we see on the streets of London; that offence is covered by section 15 of the Theft Act 1968. Nor does it seek to protect those who cause, permit or encourage a child to beg; that offence is covered by section 4 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933. It does, however, seek to decriminalise vagrancy, and in so doing it has the support of the Law Society, the National Childrens Home, the National Association of Probation Officers and many other groups.
If, as we have been told in the past, the basic purpose of the vagrancy laws is to preserve public order and decency and to protect individuals from offence or injury, it seems clear that we are now adequately served—not least by the laws that I have cited. We have been told by the police that they arrest people only when there is an element of threatening or intimidating behaviour. Nowhere in sections 3 and 4 of the 1824 Act are the words "threatening" and "intimidating" used; the offence specified is begging itself.
If threatening or intimidating behaviour is used, the police should prosecute, but that should be done under section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986—which properly deals with such circumstances—and not under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act.
In 1989, a total of 1,256 people were prosecuted and brought to London magistrates courts for the simple offence of begging. That can mean only that in those cases


there was no element of threatening or intimidating behaviour, because, had there been, the police would have been obliged to prosecute under section 5 of the Public Order Act.
In a letter to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) dated 22 February 1990, a Home Office Minister said:
There is no specific power of arrest attached to the 1824 Act, and sleeping rough and begging are not arrestable offences under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but there is a general power of arrest in section 25 of the Act if the suspect's name and address are not known or the address given is doubtful, in which case it would be impossible to serve a summons; or where there are reasonable grounds to believe that arrest is necessary to prevent the suspect from causing unlawful damage to property, committing an offence against public decency or causing an unlawful obstruction of the highway.
As it is not possible to serve a summons on homeless people, they are always dealt with by way of arrest.
The Government correctly point out that the offences under sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act are not imprisonable—offenders are generally fined—but there is an additional sentence of imprisonment in default of payment. Homeless and penniless people therefore have two likely courses of action—to beg to raise money for the fine or to spend time in custody. Therefore, they are likely to be imprisoned for offences that in 1982 the Government felt were not sufficiently serious to merit such punishment.
The people about whom we are talking who appear in court on vagrancy charges will be cold and hungry, they neither ask for nor receive legal aid, they will not understand the court proceedings, and they will probably plead guilty. In practice, those who appear before the courts are summarily convicted. They are fined money that they do not have, and may then serve a 24-hour sentence in lieu of payment of fine. They then go back on the streets whence they came. How does that help them? How does it help society? Homelessness is a social problem, not a crime.
In recent years and months, the Government have sought to tackle the problem of homelessness by the provision of more accommodation. That, and help and advice, is a better way of dealing with these unfortunate people. The Bill would help to ensure that we treat them as human beings and not as criminals.

Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Hargreaves, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. David Evennett, Mr. David Alton, Mr. John Battle, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock, Sir Charles Irving, Mr. Frank Field and Mr. Simon Hughes.

VAGRANCY (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Ken Hargreaves accordingly presented a Bill to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act 1824: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 28 June and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

Orders of the Day — Criminal Justice Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Resolved,
That the Lords Amendments to the Criminal Justice Bill be considered in the following order, namely, Nos. 44, 45, 1 to 43 and 46 to 175.—[Mr. Kenneth Baker.]
Lords amendment: No. 44, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause:
(" . No court shall be required to sentence a person convicted of murder to imprisonment for life.")

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to consider the following Lords amendments: No. 60 in clause 30, in page 21, line 44, after ("life prisoner") insert
("who has been convicted of murder")
Government motion to disagree.
No. 162, in schedule 12, page 95, line 15, at end insert—
("1965 c. 71. The Murder (Abolition of Death Penalty) Act 1965. In section 1 in subsection (1), the words from "and" to the end of the subsection; subsection (2); in subsection (4), the words from "in each of the said sections 70" to the end of the subsection; in subsection (5), the words from "but in lieu thereof" to the end of the subsection.")
Government motion to disagree.

Mr. Baker: With this amendment and those grouped with it, we return to the penalty for murder; that is the principal question before the House today. The debate also covers the procedures governing the administration of life sentences.
The first question is the penalty for murder—the mandatory life sentence. The Government are inviting the House to disagree with the Lords amendment which would abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder. We shall debate later the procedures for administering life sentences, where the Government are proposing substitute amendments to those made in the Lords in so far as they affect discretionary life sentences. That will be the second major debate of the day.
This is the third time during the proceedings on the Bill that the full House has discussed what the penalty should be for the crime of murder. The matter was also discussed in Standing Committee A on 7 February this year.
As I am sure the House will recall, just before Christmas, on 17 December, we debated whether capital punishment should be restored as the penalty for some or all categories of murder. The House rejected capital punishment by substantial majorities. I do not personally support the restoration of the death penalty, but I respect the sincerely held views on this subject of that substantial minority of our colleagues who support it.
The clear assumption underlying the debate on 17 December was that, if the death penalty were not restored, a life sentence would remain the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder. That was the assumption underlying all debates on capital punishment since 1964.
The Government made their position clear on the mandatory life sentence for murder in the White Paper which was published in February 1990. In paragraph 6·15, we said that we believed
that the mandatory sentence of life imprisonment for the crime of murder should remain, to mark the heinous nature of this crime.
When the death penalty for murder was abolished in 1965, the Government of the day made it clear that murder would carry a fixed statutory sentence, which was life, and that the Home Secretary, in the exercise of his primary duty to protect the public, would retain complete discretion to release a murderer after a short or long period or, in some cases, not at all. The Home Secretary of the day, Sir Frank Soskice, took considerable pains to explain to Parliament how he would exercise that discretion to ensure that society was properly protected. During the debate on 17 December, I made absolutely clear my intention to continue my predecessor's policy of requiring those responsible for the worst categories of murder to serve at least 20 years in prison.
On Report, an amendment to abolish the mandatory life sentence for murder was tabled by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It was debated but not voted on. The Minister of State—my right hon. Friend the Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) —made it clear then that the Government continued to regard the retention of the mandatory sentence as essential to mark the uniquely heinous nature of the crime of murder.
The other place, however, has approached the issue in a different way. Its Select Committee on murder arid life imprisonment, which reported in July 1989, recommended that the life sentence should no longer be the mandatory penalty for murder. The other place has sought to give effect to that recommendation by Lords amendment No. 44, and Lords amendments Nos. 60 and 162, which are consequential.
The Government do not dismiss lightly the sincerely held views of the majority in the other place who support the abolition of the mandatory sentence. Like capital punishment, this is essentially a matter of judgment in which there is, properly, room for differing views to be held. Having reflected carefully on the views expressed in the other place, however, I have concluded that I must advise the House to disagree with their Lordships in these amendments in so far as they seek to abolish the mandatory life sentence in England, Wales and Scotland.
Those who want the mandatory sentence to disappear have argued that murder is not, in fact, a uniquely heinous crime. They say that certain kinds of murder are less heinous than some others. The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West argued this in the debate on 20 February. I do not think that I do a disservice to his arguments by saying that, but I disagree with those arguments.
At the core of the crime of murder is the intentional taking of another person's life—killing someone, with an intent to kill or to do grievous bodily harm. It is all very well to talk about mercy killings or so-called domestic murders, but the fact remains that in each case another

person's life has been intentionally taken away. It is a crime where there can never be any possibility of the victim recovering or receiving redress or compensation. It is a crime of dreadful finality.
I believe that the public perceive, rightly, a distinction between the seriousness of murder and that of other crimes. This justifies a unique penalty for those who commit it. The public have a right to expect that Parliament and the criminal justice system will take effective steps to punish those who commit this crime and to protect the public from offenders who have shown themselves capable of intentionally taking another person's life.
Of course murders and murderers vary, and the variations are reflected in the amount of time that the murderer actually spends behind bars. Where there are powerful extenuating circumstances and where there is no continuing danger to the public—such as, for example, it could be argued, in some mercy killings—the person might be released after a short period. On the other hand, someone who had committed a particularly brutal and sadistic murder could expect to spend a very long time behind bars.
In either case, however, the murderer's liberty would be at the disposal of the state for the rest of his days—and that, I believe, is as it should be. A murderer released for a life sentence can be recalled at any time. That is not the position for a person serving a determinate sentence—that is, a sentence of a set number of years. The mandatory sentence marks publicly and unequivocally the special nature of the crime that has been committed, while allowing wide flexibility to administer the sentence in the way that best suits the circumstances of the individual case.
I believe that the system proposed in the Lords amendment would undermine the public's confidence in the willingness and ability of the criminal justice system to deal with this particular crime. We should be clear that amendment No. 44 would allow any penalty, from an absolute discharge upwards, to be given for the crime of murder. One can imagine the outcry if, say, a probation order were given for murder.

Mr. John Greenway: My right hon. Friend has just put his finger on the most crucial part of this debate. Surely, what the people outside need to feel is that there is a penalty for murder which will deter killers from murdering. If any penalty could be given, there would be no deterrent.

Mr. Baker: My right hon. Friend is right, and I prefaced this part of my comments by talking about the confidence of the public. I believe that the public, whose views on capital punishment are clearly known, would feel very let down if there were a weakening in the mandatory sentence for murder, for the reasons that I have advanced.
It has been suggested that the definition of murder should be changed to exclude mercy killing. The law in this area was fully reviewed by the Criminal Law Revision Committee in 1980. The committee unanimously recommended against proposing a special offence of mercy killing or any special discretion when trying such cases. The argument was that relaxing the law could cause rather than prevent suffering, as the weak, the handicapped and


the elderly, who might be the victims of so-called mercy killings, would receive less protection from the criminal law. The Government agree with that view.
At the other end of the scale, if there were not a mandatory life sentence in very bad cases, judges might find themselves under pressure to pass determinate sentences longer than anything that would be regarded as appropriate in this country. We should recall that, under the early release provisions in part II of the Bill, a 60-year determinate sentence would need to be passed to ensure that the prisoner served at least 30 years. I doubt whether judges would really be happy passing sentences of that length. Nor is it realistic to expect them, at the point of sentencing, to look so far into the future to try to predict when society will have judged that the crime had been expiated, that the prisoner should be released and that it was safe to do so.
No, I submit that the best and fairest system is the one we have now, where the life sentence is fixed by law, and responsibility then passes to the Home Secretary of the day to decide how the sentence should be spent. That responsibility is part of the Home Secretary's general responsibility for the protection of the public, the preservation of the Queen's peace, and the maintenance of public confidence in the criminal justice system.
For those reasons, I invite the House to disagree with Lords amendment No. 44 now, and with amendments Nos. 60 and 162 when they are reached.

Mr. Roy Hattersley: The principal objection to the mandatory life sentence can be simply stated. It is an objection in principle on which the Home Secretary did not find it necessary even to touch. Sentencing should be the responsibility of the courts, not of the Executive, not of Ministers and not of civil servants. Yet in practice, in the sentencing of men and women convicted of murder and receiving the mandatory sentence, the custodial period of the sentence is determined by Ministers—members of the Executive.
In the House of Lords on 18 April, Lord Waddington illustrated the present state of affairs with alarming clarity. The Home Secretary made the same point—more subtly as one would expect, but equally wrongly. Lord Waddington said:
the House of Commons has repeatedly voted against capital punishment for murder on the understanding that murderers would stay in prison for as long as Ministers thought necessary."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 1991; Vol. 1501, c. 1603.]
The determination of the length of a prison sentence should not be a matter for members of the Executive. Both the Home Secretary and Lord Waddington in the other place three months ago misjudged the real intention of the House.
4 pm
All of us wanted men and women convicted of murder to serve an appropriate sentence, but the idea that Ministers should, in effect, determine the length of the prison sentence is incompatible with the rules that should govern a free society in which the judiciary and the Executive are properly separated. That Ministers determine the length of the prison sentence is undoubtedly the case in practice.
I remind the House of what really happens, because the Home Secretary talks as if the mandatory sentence were basically what it sounds like—something imposed by the courts and then served out without ministerial adjudication or interference. A mandatory sentence being passed, the judge stipulates privately—or, as the noble Lords described it, "secretly"—to the Home Secretary what he believes the minimum sentence should be. It is mandatory life in theory and what the judge stipulates the minimum should be in practice. Again in theory, the Home Secretary—although to everyone's surprise it was revealed in the House of Lords that in practice, a junior Minister often decides the issue—decides whether the Home Office and the Government are prepared to endorse the judge's private recommendation on the length of sentence.
We were told in the House of Lords debate that in 1988, the last year for which figures are available, 106 recommendations on mandatory sentences were made by judges. In 60 cases, the Home Secretary or a junior Minister extended the sentence. In nine cases, the Home Secretary or a junior Minister reduced them. In 34 cases, they remained the same. Secretly—generally without the public knowing—the Home Secretary—or a Parliamentary Under-Secretary—is acting like a court of appeal, altering the recommended sentence which the judge has conveyed privately. They do that without hearing witnesses, without seeing the accused and without hearing the case for the prosecution or the defence. Ministers sit in their offices or take red boxes home at night and determine the length of the sentence. One has only to describe that state of affairs to realise that it is incompatible with a constitution that says that the judiciary and the Executive are wholly separate.
The final decision that is in Ministers' hands is whether, when they have secretly and privately decided the length of sentence, the man or women should be allowed out on licence before the secret period is up. The fact that Ministers, in effect, determine the length of sentences is in itself enough to justify support for the Lords amendment, but there are other reasons why the mandatory sentence is wrong in principle as well as in practice.
I have already made my point in describing the process, but I need to emphasise it in explaining our belief that the mandatory sentence amounts to a custodial award being made in secret. The prisoner leaves the court not knowing how long he or she is to serve. Again, that is a basic denial of a civil right. That is only the first denial of justice. The second is that there is no appeal against the sentence. The man may have gone to prison and the judge may have recommended that he serve 20 years. A woman may have gone to prison and the judge may have recommended that she serves five years. A convicted prisoner does not know and has no way in which to appeal against what the judge has proposed and what the Home Secretary has decided.
A sentence imposed by Ministers in secret and allowing no appeal is a clear denial of justice. It is therefore in no way surprising that the Lord Chief Justice sponsored the Lords amendment which the Home Secretary hopes to negate, and that he was supported by so many distinguished Law Lords and laywers of every kind. They proposed that a man or women convicted of murder should receive a stipulated sentence in open court, that the sentence should be subject to appeal and that a judicial tribunal with appropriate judicial rules should determine other questions of release. They believe that those three requirements are essential to the rule of law as it is


understood in this country in other courts and practices. I fear that this afternoon the Home Secretary has not begun to refute the argument that those changes are essential to the proper working of an independent judicial system which is not overruled or overrulable by Ministers acting arbitrarily and in secret.
Nor has the Home Secretary dealt adequately with the practical and adverse consequences of the present system. In the Lords a succession of lawyers, judges, barristers and solicitors returned time after time to the central theme, which is the vast variation in the real categories of murder. It is no good for the Home Secretary to say simplistically that all murders are murders. Of course they are. However, different murders have different consequences and different causes. Different murders have different degrees of moral guilt and varying mitigating circumstances, and the culpability of each murder inevitably varies according to the character, conduct, personality and the psychology of the accused which, as I shall demonstrate in a moment, courts take into account with great detriment to the legal system and its reputation.
Their Lordships, describing the definition of murder and the variations and the width of those variations, gave many examples from their own experiences as judges, barristers and instructing solicitors. Those included two teenage girls who killed a brutal father who, in the past, had assaulted them regularly. They did not kill him in self-defence when they were being assaulted because that might have been quite a different matter. They killed him when he was alone: they simply felt that they could stand his assaults no longer and they took the opportunity to kill him. Their Lordships put that at one extreme. The other extreme they cited as the terrorist who had callously gunned down a group of innocent civilians rather than risk arrest and conviction.
Their Lordships asked a rhetorical question to which I believe there can be only one answer. They asked whether any rational person believes that those are two comparable crimes which in court should be awarded the same sentence. As the law now stands, the two girls and the terrorist, when convicted of murder, would recceive the mandatory life sentence. It seemed to their Lordships and it seems to me that sentences should be related to the nature of the crime and should publicly be seen to be related to the nature of the crime.
At the moment, it may well be that, after the Home Secretary's intervention, the sentence is related to the variations in murder which, to an extent, the Home Secretary has denied this afternoon. However, while those variations may eventually be related after the Home Secretary has imposed his will on the judge's recommendation, the public perception, about which the Home Secretary seems to be pleased, is that, at the time of sentencing, all murderers receive the same penalty.
I believe that to act as if all murders are the same, as if the guilt is the same and as if the moral culpability is the same, is not so much to bring the law into disrepute, as to bring it into contempt. The young girls I described went off to prison uncertain whether they would be there for five years or for 20 years. That seems to be denial of civil liberties. However, there is the other side of the coin: the effect on those who commit the most horrendous murders of the amorphous mandatory sentence and the idea that all murders are the same. In the words of the House of Lords Select Committee, the fact that life imprisonment is mandatory

dilutes what should be the awe-inspiring nature of the life sentence.
It is what happens to all murderers, and some actually serve their sentence. I certainly believe that the mandatory nature, far from acting as a deterrent, dilutes the feeling that the most wicked of murders will receive the most severe penalties.
Again, the home Secretary did not feel it necessary to draw the attention of the House to what the Lord Chief Justice thought right to tell the House of Lords. There is no doubt that the mandatory sentence, as now applied, distorts the whole criminal process in a way that is deeply damaging to the system. The House of Lords was given examples of convictions that had been diluted. I do not know whether the Home Secretary is disagreeing.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I am listening.

Mr. Hattersley: I am relieved, pleased, flattered and optimistic that, on this occasion, there may be the remotest chance that, having listened, the Home Secretary will actually reply to the points that I have raised with him. I raise this point which, again, he did not think it necessary to draw to the attention of the House.
The Lord Chief Justice of England thought it right to make an explanation to the other place. Examples were given, not only by him but by other Law Lords, of occasions when convictions had been intentionally diluted from murder to manslaughter on the claim of diminished responsibility. They made the suggestion—it was openly made; there was no question about their judgment on this matter—that psychiatrists were called in, that juries were swayed and that judges were influenced by the fact that, although a person was technically guilty of murder, in their view a mandatory sentence was inappropriate, and therefore, instead of bringing in the verdict that a technical application of law required, they intentionally diluted it from murder to manslaughter. That cannot be right for the system.
The concluding quotation on the subject was given in the judgment of Lord Kilbrandon in Hyam v. the Director of Public Prosecutions, in which he said:
It is no longer true, if it ever were true, that murder as we now define it is necessarily the most heinous example of homicide.
It is a bad day for the criminal justice system when juries and judges sometimes say, "The law is so unreasonable that we are going to apply the law not according to statute but according to our judgment of what is proper.
Capital punishment in this country is constantly being removed from various crimes because juries refused to convict because they thought that it was an inappropriate sentence. According to the Law Lords, juries are now refusing to convict for murder and are convicting for manslaughter simply because they believe that the mandatory sentence is inappropriate and should not be applied.
Why, really, do the Government wish to pursue their irrational and deeply damaging course? My suspicion, which is fuelled by Lord Waddington's speech which everyone who heard it will know left their Lordships absolutely aghast, is that the Government resist change because of what they believe to be—[Interruption.] I thought that the passage that said that the readers of tabloid newspapers would not support any change in the law was a particularly moving and intellectual passage in a speech which was notable for its academic content. I


want to try to analyse the true reasons behind the Lords opposition and the Government's opposition to the improvement, which has everything to commend it in terms of rational reform.
I suspect that the Government resist change because of what they believe to be public opinion and because they fear a reputation for being soft on murder and murderers. In that suspicion and in that fear, they are not only mistaken but categorically mistaken. The system proposed by the House of Lords would clearly focus attention on the properly severe—by that I mean suitably long—sentence for those who are found guilty of the horrendous murder. It would focus attention on those men and women who, having committed murder, should, in the general opinion of the House, go to prison for 20 years or more. It would ensure that they do so and are sentenced to that long period in prison by the public court and against a background of headlines and reporting.
4.15 pm
The improvement would also calm public opinion in another sense. There is a widespread notion that the life sentence lasts, on average, from 10 to 12 years. I have no doubt that there is much resentment at the idea that a man or woman may commit a horrendous murder and be in prison for barely a decade. However, when the public complain about such a 10-year sentence, they do not complain about girls who kill their brutal fathers, but about terrorists who slaughter innocent bystanders. By lumping those different crimes together and producing a crude average of 10 or 12 years, we undermine people's confidence in the undoubted fact that the worst murderers should serve an appropriately long period in prison.
On the grounds of rational argument and sensible examination, there is everything to be gained in terms of liberty, deterrence and assuring public opinion, in focusing attention on the real sentences received by real murderers for truly wicked crimes. To perpetuate present policy is to blur the distinction and allow the British public to believe that we are soft on murder in general. We should demonstrate how hard we are on murderers who generally deserve a substantial period in prison.
There are other sectors where change is needed, but to make the proposed change would be one more attempt to bring British penal policy into line with that of other civilised countries. In this matter, as in other particulars. we are hideously out of line. In 1990, there were 3,503 life sentence prisoners in United Kingdom gaols—3,054 in Great Britain and the rest in Northern Ireland. There were more life sentence prisoners in British gaols than in all the rest of western Europe added together, where the total of life sentence prisoners was 2,688. That is partly as a result of our failure to distinguish between those convicted of murder who should receive the longest conceivable sentences and those who should not.

Mr. Michael Shersby: I am listening with great interest to what the right hon. Gentleman has to say. Will he comment on the Home Secretary's point that it would be necessary for a court to pass a sentence of 60 years in the case of a terrible murder for the defendant to spend half that period in prison? Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the courts of this country would,

in those cases, be willing to pass sentences of that length? That is a matter which causes concern to many of us who are listening with great interest to the debate.

Mr. Hattersley: There are two answers to that question. If the Home Secretary wants to ensure that long prison sentences for the worst murders, as I have described them, are served, he should come to the House not with a proposal to abandon the Lords amendment, but to make adjustments to give it the practical reality that he says it lacks. I wonder whether even that would be necessary.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) asked whether judges would be prepared to impose sentences of the sort now necessary. It is clear that they would, as they said so in the House of Lords, where Law Lord after Law Lord rose to propose the system. We must assume that the Law Lords understand the ramifications of the law at least as well as the Home Secretary. They knew the technique that was necessary to achieve the proposed aim and were perfectly willing to apply it—indeed, they were as passionately anxious that it should be incorporated in the law.

Mr. Peter Archer: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that there is nothing in the Lords amendment to preclude a judge from passing a life sentence in the appropriate case?

Mr. Hattersley: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows and I have tried to explain, the effect of the amendment would be quite the opposite. Its purpose, which is why we support it, is to ensure that life sentences would be passed where appropriate, with all the advantages in terms of deterrence and public opinion—Interruption.] I shall not give way again, because I know that the House wants to make progress. I think that I have already spoken for slightly longer than the Home Secretary. I have two minutes' worth of other comments to make, and hon. Members can then attempt to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, if they want to make their own contributions.
The Lords proposal is a rational, sensible and practical way forward. It is not surprising that the Butler committee on abnormal offences in 1975, the Advisory Council on Penal Systems in 1978, the Lords Select Committee on murder and life imprisonment in 1980 all supported this reform. Indeed, in 1980—over 10 years ago—members of the Criminal Law Revision Committee were equally divided on whether the reform should be made. According to the Lords debate, I cannot comment on whether that was a correct judgment. Were they to consider the matter now, they would undoubtedly support the Lords view.
The simple argument is that murder varies enormously in viciousness, moral culpability and mitigating circumstances. To suggest that a mercy killer should receive the same sentence as a hired assassin and that that sentence should then be adjusted in private by a Minister working on his own discretion, without any evidence or arguments in front of him, is a clear denial of civil rights. We should have a more practical and more principled proposal.
The House of Lords was making and suggesting progress and we shall support it in the progress that the amendment would clearly bring to the Bill.

Sir Peter Emery: First, I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on what I thought was support for a case that is widely accepted throughout


the country—the fact that people expect all forms of murder, heinous and terrifying as they are, to receive the maximum sentence that the courts can give.
I rise to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Leader of the House has, as quickly as possible, arranged for an experiment to be carried out during this debate, in accordance with the recommendations contained in the second report of the Select Committee on Procedure. I hope that hon. Members will look at the way in which amendments are now marshalled and will note that for the first time the order paper shows the Government's view on the amendments. We never knew their view as papers were marshalled in the past. There is now just one order paper rather than the three with which we had to deal in the past. I hope that the House will approve of the experiment. Whether the Leader of the House decides to carry the idea forward will depend on the views expressed by hon. Members, so I hope that they will convey their views to the Leader of the House.
I sincerely support the view taken by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. I understand the arguments put by the Shadow Home Secretary, but they seem to be out of touch with the feeling of people in most constituencies— [HON. MEMBERS: "What about the Law Lords?"] Some people do not always believe that the Law Lords are in touch with ordinary people. Indeed, some hon. Members believe that they should not be there at all because they are so out of touch. I shall not follow that argument, but I believe that the House should support the line that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is taking today.

Mr. Archer: I have the misfortune to differ from the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) about the merits of the debate, but I echo his comments about the new marshalling of the amendments on the order paper. There, at least, there seems to be some common ground across the Chamber.
The arguments on this subject have been deployed at various stages in the Bill's progress, here and in another place. They have just been deployed persuasively by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). I rise only in the hope that, even now, it may not be too late.
I do not pretend that I can adduce any original arguments at this stage. My right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said that he hoped that the Home Secretary might listen and answer some of our arguments —I hope that he will do better than that, and that he will listen to some of our arguments and consider them.
Four principles are fundamental to our penal system, and they apply to every case. First, no one should receive a sentence greater than he deserves unless it is necessary to protect the public. That is the very principle running through the Bill—we have been reminded of it again and again from the Government Front Bench during debates on the Bill. That philosophy runs right through the system and applies, however grave or however venal the offence. An offender may have committed a horrifying and wicked offence and may be held to deserve a sentence of 20 years, but the principle still holds that he ought not to receive a sentence of more than 20 years, unless it is necessary to protect the public.
If that principle is to be applied, it is essential that we know what length of sentence he deserves so that it is known at what point we may be justified in considering

whether a further sentence is necessary to protect the public. That will be the subject matter of our next debate, but I am a little disappointed that, having accepted that principle, the Government are applying it only to discretionary and not mandatory life sentences.

Mr. John Bowis: I sought clarification from the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) about Opposition Members' arguments, and my argument was precisely the same as the hon. Gentleman's on the difference between the protection of the public and a deterrent. I entirely understand the view on heinous crimes to which he referred. I doubt whether a capital or a life sentence ever deterred anyone—people will still commit such crimes. Such sentences may help to deter people from committing the lesser types of murder that the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook described. However, surely it is worth protecting the public if it deters some people from committing that type of murder, given that those people are also protected by judges' recommendations and by the Home Secretary's discretion when listening to those recommendations.

Mr. Archer: With respect, the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) has misconceived what is meant by protecting the public in this context. What is meant by it in the Bill is imposing a sentence longer than the offence deserves, because it would be dangerous to let the offender out. That is rather different from the deterrent argument, and if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall return to that argument later.
If we are to incarcerate someone for longer than he deserves, we should at least know at what point we are considering incarcerating him for longer than he deserves. That seems to run right through our penal system and seems elementary. The Government have accepted that argument in relation to our next debate.
In that situation it must preclude our disposing of two cases, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook said, which might have different motivation, intention and wickedness—for example, the deliberate and heartless killing of a total stranger for gain, compared with the mercy killing of a beloved relative—in the same way. If we appear to do so in the court, it cannot be said that no one will serve a sentence longer than they deserve.
The second principle, to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook alluded, is that assessment of the appropriate sentence should be carried out by a judge, as a judicial exercise, and it is not an appropriate function for the executive. The rules according to which sentences are assessed are decided by the legislature and proposals are introduced by the Executive. Maximum sentences are laid down in that way. But, the decision on individual sentences properly belongs to the courts.
We are told that the public have strong views on these matters—we were told that yet again this afternoon. I am not sure what evidence we have heard for some of the opinions that have been expressed about the views of the public—perhaps we do not all meet the same members of the public. But whoever is in government and however well respected that individual might be, I am certain that the public are rightly suspicious of a member of the Government, who is subject to all kinds of political pressures, deciding the fate of individuals. That is why we


have got into difficulties when leaving to the Secretary of State the question of which convictions should be left to the courts and which should be overturned.
4.30 pm
The third principle is that the assessment of what is an appropriate sentence should be made by someone who has heard submissions on behalf of the offender and has seen whatever evidence can properly be submitted on his behalf. It is far preferable for that assessment to be made by the judge who has heard all the evidence in the trial. I do not believe that it would be acceptable to the public for such an assessment to be made by a politician or an official who has never even seen the offender—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State appears to be trying to drive a wedge between Opposition Members. I do not know whether evidence of that will emerge later. It is not a question of who is the Home Secretary or the junior Minister of the time who makes the assessment or of who is the official who makes the recommendation because, as far as the public are concerned—and they are right about this—the point is that those people are subject to political pressures that would not apply to the judiciary.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: As the House knows, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a distinguished Solicitor-General for five years. Did he hold those views then?

Mr. Archer: Yes, I did—and not only did I hold them, but I expressed them on a number of occasions. The constitutional position remains the same, whoever is in government.

Mr. Baker: I am simply saying that there were five long years during which the changes that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now advocating could not only have been brought to the attention of the Government, but could have been implemented. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman felt so strongly, was he not in a strong position, as Solicitor-General, to make those changes?

Mr. Archer: I shall come in a moment to the events that have occurred since the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his colleagues came into government, the number of people who have considered those events and the recommendations that have been made. If we had been in a position to consider all that, we might have reached a different conclusion.
My point is that whoever makes the decision now may have read written submissions, especially if the offender is articulate or has someone who is articulate to speak on his behalf, but that is no substitute for an oral process during which the judge can say which matters are troubling him and when those points can be answered by the advocate for the offender.
The fourth principle is that that process of hearing submissions and assessing the appropriate sentence should take place publicly. Again, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook alluded to that. Offenders and the public are entitled to hear what is being said, to be assured that the judge has listened and to be told by the judge what assessment he has made.
Under the present system, the judge writes his assessment secretly and the Lord Chief Justice makes a further assessment in the interests of consistency which, as has already been said, adds to the already burdensome

tasks facing him. Everything is secret up to that point—and the matter is then considered in secrecy again by someone at the Home Office. That person may disagree with the judge's assessment. In 1988, a Home Office Minister took it upon himself to increase the judge's assessment for 63 out of 106 mandatory sentences. The offenders were not to know that the Minister had disagreed with the judge, because they did not know what the judge had said in the first place. Not only is justice not seen to be done, but the offender embarks on his sentence without any idea of what the judge has assessed as the appropriate period for him to serve.
Since we first debated this issue in the House, we have all had the advantage of reading the Woolf-Tumim report. Fundamental to the recommendations of that report on the philosophy of the criminal justice system is the concept that prisons are part of the system of justice and that what happens to prisoners must be just and must be seen to be just. Yet this is the negation of justice.
On reading the debate in another place, I too was a little troubled by something that was said on behalf of the Government by Lord Waddington. He seemed to say that public confidence in the system might be shaken if the public knew the facts and the assessments that the judges were making. The suggestion that it is best to keep the public in ignorance because if they knew the facts they might misunderstand, is hardly one that we might expect to hear made on behalf of the Government in a democracy. Surely the public would be more reassured if they knew that the judge meant what he said in open court and that, when he recommended a life sentence, he meant that there should be a substantial sentence.
I am surprised that the amendment which the Government are introducing to meet the ruling of the European Court is confined narrowly to discretionary life sentences. I should have thought that the argument that operated for discretionary life sentences operated equally strongly in the case of mandatory life sentences.
I made passing reference to the events that had happened since we were last in government. It is perfectly true and I accept at once that in 1975 the Butler committee on mentally abnormal offenders recommended the proposal which has now been made by another place, and in 1978 the recommendation was repeated by the Advisory Council on the Penal System. But the proposal was reiterated by the all-party penal affairs group in 1986 and by the Select Committee under the chairmanship of Lord Nathan in 1988. Since then, the proposal has been supported by two former Home Office Ministers—Lord Windlesham and Lord Harris, Justice, the Quaker Council for European Affairs, the Lord Chief Justice and three Lords of Appeal. I should have thought that that was sufficient for the Government to allay any fears on the part of the public that the matter had not been properly considered.
One other benefit has been alluded to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook. If someone were seen publicly to address the degree of guilt and, consequently, the appropriate sentence, it would dispense with the need to make what many people may feel is an artificial distinction between murder and manslaughter by reason of diminished responsibility. We know the amount of court time and the resources which are diverted to making that distinction. It is not an appropriate distinction.
The distinction that should be addressed is between a case which deserves a long sentence and one which does


not. As my right hon. Friend said, it may be that the distinction distorts the system because we are receiving convictions for manslaughter where the appropriate conviction would be for murder. Undoubtedly that was what persuaded victim support and the Group for Parents of Murdered Children to support the proposal.
I am conscious of the passage of time, but I promised the hon. Member for Battersea that I would say a word about deterrence. For the most serious murders—the really wicked murders—long sentences will be given in any event. Any argument based on deterrence will apply equally to such cases. But where murders are committed under the stress of great emotion, I do not believe that people sit down and consider the sentence that they are likely to receive. That is the answer to the argument based on deterrence.
The last argument adduced—I almost said "dredged up" but I do not wish to be offensive—by the Secretary of State was that when, in December, the House decided by a substantial majority not to reintroduce the capital sentence for murder, some hon. Members may have voted against because the alternative was a mandatory life sentence. If that is a valid argument, it would rule out all proposals for change on any matter which may have influenced any hon. Member when the House took a decision. So a simple method of strangling all proposals for reform on any topic, for that Parliament at least, would be to introduce any single proposal which is voted down.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): That is too lateral. [Interruption.]

Mr. Archer: If the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir Peter Emery) wishes to adduce further lateral arguments, he may do so.
The proposal may or may not mean that sentences are generally shorter. It may very well mean that some sentences are longer. No one argues that in an appropriate case there should not be a long sentence. But the proposal would mean that any individual sentence would be related, and manifestly seen to be related, to the merits of the case. That is what justice is about.

Mr. Shersby: As the House knows, I am parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation of England and Wales and I wish to declare that interest this afternoon.
The House will be aware that there is a thin blue line standing between evil men, and sometimes women, and the law-abiding citizens of this country. That thin blue line is the men and women of the police. Sometimes, tragically, that line is broken when police officers are murdered while protecting the public from the actions of vicious criminals and ruthless killers. When that happens the line is quickly joined as other officers take the place of their fallen comrades.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said:
At the core of the crime of murder is the intentional taking of another person's life—that is killing someone with intent to kill or do grievous bodily harm.
My right hon. Friend also reminded us
It is a crime of dreadful finality.
I agree.
What protection do the police have against the intentional taking of lives by, for example, armed criminals who do not hesitate to shoot them down in the street? Until 1965 the death penalty existed, which most

police officers consider a powerful deterrent to murder. However, Parliament abolished that penalty 26 years ago and in its place provided the life sentence for murder.
One of the first major tests of the use of long sentences for the murder of a police officer occurred in 1966, only a year after the abolition of the death penalty. It was found to be wanting.
Let me remind the House of what happened on a summer's afternoon in Braybrook street off Shepherd's Bush. Three policemen in an unmarked car became suspicious of a blue Standard Vanguard estate car parked near Wormwood Scrubs and they approached that vehicle. While one of the occupants of that car was being questioned—John Edward Witney was his name—another occupant, Harry Roberts, pulled out a gun and shot dead Detective Sergeant Christopher Head and Detective Constable David Wombwell. Another occupant of the car, John Duddy, then ran to the police car and shot Police Constable Geoffrey Fox in the head as he sat behind the steering wheel.
I remember that case very well because it so happened that I lived and worked in the area at the time. All three men were eventually caught, arrested and given life sentences for murder in 1966. At the trial, the late Mr. Justice Glyn-Jones said:
I think it is likely that no Home Secretary regarding the enormity of your crime will ever think it fit to show mercy by releasing you on licence. This is one of those cases in which the sentence of imprisonment for life may well be treated as meaning exactly that.
He went on to say:
Lest any Home Secretary in future be minded to consider your release on licence, I have to make a recommendation.
He recommended a sentence of imprisonment for 30 years.
As a result partly of that trial—many of us remember it and the loss of the lives of those three Metropolitan police officers—and the 30-year sentence that was awarded, the police, although they still wanted the return of the death penalty, felt that in the absence of that penalty they could at least rely upon the firm assurances of the Home Secretary of the day that no offender imprisoned for the murder of an officer would he released until the sentence had been completed.
Those assurances were confirmed subsequently; first by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witney (Mr. Hurd) when, as Home Secretary, he told the Police Federation conference in 1989:
Since capital punishment was abolished in 1965, the Conservative view of the murder of police officers has been proved by a single telling fact; in that time not one person convicted of murdering a police officer has been released from prison.
4.45 pm
I well remember when my right hon. Friend said that, because I had just been appointed as parliamentary adviser to the Police Federation. I remembered that conference as it occurred early on in my new job.
A year later my right hon. and noble Friend, Lord Waddington, who was then Home Secretary, said to the Police Federation conference:
Parliamentary policy is that offenders imprisoned for the murder of a police officer will not be released until their sentence is completed.
As a result, the federated ranks of the police gradually came to accept that their best protection, in the absence of the death penalty, was such assurances together with the belief that only as a result of the executive action of the Home Secretary of the day could those who had murdered


police officers be released. The police believed that those found guilty would either complete long sentences or be detained in prison for, as my right hon. Friend, the present Home Secretary, said today "the rest of his days." My right hon. Friend clearly envisages that, in a case of a serious murder, such as that which occurred in 1965, the individual concerned will remain in custody for the rest of his days.
Unfortunately that belief was undermined to some extent when, earlier this month, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary advised the police that one of the men convicted of that terrible murder at Shepherd's Bush, John Edward Witney, was to be released on life licence five years before the end of the 30-year sentence recommended by the trial judge.
My right hon. Friend told the chairman of the Police Federation that that decision was taken after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice and that it reflected the view that Witney's case could be distinguished from that of his two co-defendants since he did not fire a weapon during the shooting. He also said that the Parole Board did not consider that Witney would present a risk and accordingly it recommended his release. I hope, as I am sure every hon. Member does, that my right hon. Friend is right.
What my right hon. Friend's decision has made crystal clear is, as he announced,
Murderers of police officers should normally be expected to be detained for at least 20 years.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: What conclusions does the hon. Gentleman draw from this experience about the matter under debate? Does he believe that his clients, the Police Federation, would have greater confidence in the decision of a judge who initially recommended 30 years or in that of some unknown Home Secretary some years on?

Mr. Shersby: I am grateful for that intervention and if the hon. Gentleman will bear with me for a moment I shall give the House my answer.
When my right hon. Friend announced his decision to release Witney, he said that 20 years was consistent with the Government's declared policy of ensuring that the time served by prisoners convicted of the worst offences of violence fully meets public concern about violence. However, it does not fully meet the concerns of members of the Police Federation. They expect the sentence imposed by the court to be completed, and that in the case of police murders the offender should lose his or her liberty to the state for the rest of his or her days.
As a result of the release of Witney this month, the federation is now calling on the House to sustain the Lords amendment, and to rely on the courts to ensure that the offender will not be released before a fixed period determined by the court.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Is that not the exact opposite of the view expressed strongly to us by the Police Federation six months ago?

Mr. Shersby: I shall return to that point in a few moments, but it is true that there has been some change from the views formerly held by members of the Police Federation. That change has undoubtedly been influenced by the Witney case.
I share the federation's concern, but I understand that, in advancing the case for overturning the Lords amendment, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary

must have very much in mind that in the end it is the Home Secretary and the Government of the day who have to take responsibility for the protection of the public. That is one of the most essential considerations affecting our approach to this difficult matter. I hope, therefore, that when my right hon. Friend the Minister of State replies to the debate she will tell us how she reconciles the release of Witney with the policy so clearly expressed by the Home Secretary:
the best and fairest system is the one we have now, where the life sentence is fixed by law, and the responsibility then passes to the Home Secretary of the day to decide how the sentence should be spent".
I hope that, if my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary wishes—as I know that he does—to retain the full support of the police for his policy, he will give an assurance that there will be no more releases before the sentence fixed by the trial judge has been completed, especially in cases such as that which I have described, in which the recommendation was specific.
I realise how difficult a decision my right hon. Friend has had to face today in deciding how to deal with the amendment. I believe that he has done as he has because he recognises that it is his responsibility as Home Secretary —as it will be the responsibility of his successors in due course—to protect the public and to be able to reassure them that no one who commits such murders will receive any sentence other than one that will deter and will protect the public from ruthless and vicious killers.

Mr. Maclennan: The hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) has holed the Home Secretary's argument below the water line. He has made it plain that the Police Federation, which is more continuously concerned than any other section of the community about the threat posed by murder to the public—and indeed, to the federation's own members—does not agree with the view that the Home Secretary sought to persuade the House was the general view of the public. It does not agree that a deterrent sentence, a mandatory life sentence, is the most effective response to the crime of murder.
Nothing in the Home Secretary's speech adduced any evidence that the public's view of the mandatory life sentence was as he suggested. That idea is remote from what I understand to be public opinion on the subject. I believe that the public recognise that mandatory life sentences are not life sentences. Many members of the public are sceptical about such sentences because they vary so much. They vary not according to the courts' perception of the seriousness of the crime, but according to the view of the Home Secretary of the day some years later.
I understand that the Minister of State is to reply to the debate, and I noticed that the Home Secretary, in an aside to her, spoke of his obligation to protect the public when he takes decisions on release. There is no doubt that that must be the predominant consideration in the minds of Home Secretaries when exercising their discretion, but it is not the predominant consideration that leads the public to criticise the mandatory life sentence. The public criticism is that too often a life sentence is too short. That is a more realistic appraisal of the public view of life sentences.
The argument is not new for those who have already spoken in such debates, but I have not had the opportunity to speak on the subject earlier in the Bill's progress, so I intend to put on record a few of the considerations that have led me to believe that the time has come for a change in the law.
When capital punishment was originally abolished I was satisfied that the mandatory life sentence was a sensible alternative, but as we have seen the law evolve and cases being decided it has become increasingly clear that the penalty does not in any sense match the crime. Although the court is undoubtedly best placed to assess the heinousness of the offence—the court is possessed of the evidence and has the opportunity to see the witnesses —it is not the court that determines how long the convicted murderer will remain in prison.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) described graphically what have been described in another place as the "secret communications" between the sentencing judge and the Home Office. It is not appropriate, and the public does not regard it as appropriate, that sentencing should be conducted in that manner—by secret negotiations with the Executive. Most members of the public regard judges as the appropriate people to make decisions about the seriousness of a crime and the length of prison sentence to be suffered by the convicted person.
The law as it stands invests in the executive arm of Government the effective power of sentencing for murder—a power exercised in secrecy, so that it does not allow of an appeal in the normal sense of the word, a fact which has brought us before the European Court of Human Rights. Our procedures have been seriously criticised in that court, and we have been found to be in violation of article 5(4) of the convention. I look forward to hearing the Home Secretary's argument on how he intends to deal with the Thynne case.
Moreover, the law as it stands does not distinguish properly between different degrees of murder. Clearly it is unsatisfactory that mandatory life sentences are automatically imposed in cases where patently less moral turpitude has been involved than in some of the more appalling cases that have come before the courts. It dilutes the sentence of life imprisonment, and the public perception that it may average nine years is perpetuated, when the truth is that a serious case of premeditated murder, of the kind that we all recognise, should mean true life imprisonment—that is, imprisonment for life. I believe that in such cases it should mean imprisonment for life, but that the law needs to be amended to enhance the deterrent effect of such true life sentences.
5 pm
Lord Nathan, who chaired the Select Committee in the other place, asked whether the existing law acted as a suitable or adequate deterrent and concluded that it did not because of the uncertainty, in practice, of the duration of the penalty.
The Lord Chief Justice, whose views were alluded to at no point in the Home Secretary's speech, was extremely critical of the law as it stood and, in particular, of the very argument that seems to underlie the approach adopted by the Home Secretary. I agree with the right hon. Member for Sparkbrook that the Home Secretary appears to be posturing in front of an audience which he considers—wrongly, in my view—is attracted to executive penalty and executive release.
Lord Lane said:
It is no sign of weakness to replace what I suggest is a flawed system with one which at the very least offers an opportunity to achieve greater fairness and so greater justice.
I think that Lord Lane was right, and the fact that the exercise of executive discretion is very much a matter of

whim has been illustrated by the practice adopted by successive Home Secretaries in the present Conservative Administration.
The right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) referred to one of the Select Committee's findings. In 1988, a higher tariff was decided by Ministers in 63 out of 106 mandatory life sentences which had been reviewed. In a six-month period in 1984, however, after Mr. Leon Brittan, as he then was, had altered the rules for review, Ministers increased the penalties recommended by trial judges in 80 cases out of 195. I do not know whether any of those alterations were made with a view to changing public perception of the effectiveness of the deterrent or what the reasons for those changes were, but they were certainly changes and they did not reflect a consistent approach by Home Secretaries to the protection of the public.
These are difficult matters for Home Secretaries to decide. I have no doubt that there must be a procedure involving the Home Secretary in the case of those whose release would constitute a danger to the public. It is beyond question that that is not something that trial judges can take into consideration. It is also clear, however, that the Home Secretary is not so well placed as the trial judge to decide the penalty appropriate for the crime.
I fear that we shall not conclude our discussions of this subject today. Judging by the tone and shortness of the Home Secretary's speech, and given that he did not address any of the substantial arguments deployed by the many Committees that have considered the matter or the arguments made in the other place, we shall clearly be returning to this debate in future. I hope, however, that we shall see a movement in the consensus within the Conservative party which reflects the very general concerns expressed by those who have to administer the law at the highest levels about the injustices of the present system.

Mr. Lawrence: In my view, the Government are quite right, in the present climate of law and order, to reject their Lordships amendment. Since the abolition of capital punishment in 1962 there has been an alarming increase in murders, in crimes using guns and weapons and in the killing of police officers. In the five years to abolition, there were 290 murders a year, whereas in the past five years, there have been 647 murders a year—a doubling in the murder rate. In 1962, 2,000 crimes were committed with guns and weapons. Today, 10,000 crimes a year are committed with guns and weapons. That is a fivefold increase. In the 24 years to 1965, 14 police officers were killed in England and Wales, whereas in the 24 years since, 53 police officers have been killed. That is a threefold increase. In the past 20 years, 59 convicted murderers have been released and have killed again.
It is doubtful whether life imprisonment works adequately as a deterrent, and this is hardly the time at which to weaken or appear to weaken the law further. The reason why the mandatory life sentence is so important —although, for the overwhelming majority of British people who want capital punishment restored, it is second best—is that the crime of murder is not like other crimes. It is unique. It involves a life being taken by a deliberate act, and in the eyes of the public, it should be dealt with by a unique sentence. To do away with the unique sentence for that unique offence would undoubtedly weaken public


confidence in the system of law and order because it would remove an element of deterrence. That confidence would be further weakened, if, in certain circumstances, the sentence passed for a murder turned out to be too light because the crime itself was in reality less serious than it appeared.
One of the problems with the press today is its bad reporting of criminal trials. Its representatives are there at the start of the trial when the prosecution opens and they are there at the end but they are seldom there in the middle when the evidence is being given. The headlines scream, "Only two years for murder. This is a disgrace. Guilty judge, guilty jury, guilty system." That is nonsense but the public react and respond to the bad reporting in the media. Yet the facts of the case may be such that a sentence of two years may be quite adequate. Under the present system, a murderer gets life and the machinery of the system then determines whether he should be let out after two years. He may not spend his life in prison but the sentence will last for life and, if he offends or becomes a danger to the public once more, he will be recalled. The sentence of life imprisonment is a deterrent—albeit second best to the deterrent of capital punishment. The public will not be disturbed and their confidence will not be undermined because they know that, under the present system, there is an element of deterrence which continues and endures.
There is another side to the coin. If the judge feels that it would not reflect the wishes of the public if he passed a light sentence, he might well pass a more severe sentence than the criminality deserves. The effect of the amendment, supported by liberals, would be to harden sentencing. It would be counter-productive. It would not achieve what is wished and would distort the prison population still further.
The abolition of mandatory life sentences would have another effect. It would require the passing of sentences of 50, 60 or 70 years in the most heinous of cases. Will judges be prepared to pass such sentences? The logic of that would be to follow the American example. We hear of sentences of 99 years, to run consecutive to other sentences of 99 years. We hear of sentences of several hundred years passed on people who have committed a series of heinous offences. That makes a laughing stock of the sentencing system.
I concede at once that the public confidence aspect is less important than the justice of the case. The question is, would more justice be done if we abolished mandatory sentences? That would be the case if "life" always meant "life", in all circumstances, with all murders and with all offenders, and regardless of whether a mercy killing had taken place. That, however, is not the position. The Home Secretary, acting on the advice of the Parole Board, decides whether the circumstances warrant earlier release.
That is a fair way of dealing with such matters. It is not obvious to the public that they are being dealt with in that way, but, as I have already conceded, the justice of the case is more important than the public confidence aspect— although that too is terribly important.
The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) said that actual sentences should be determined by a judge rather than by the Executive. At first, that may seem an attractive point; however, nowhere else in the sentencing system is the sentence determined by

the judge. It is determined by the Parole Board, with the support of Parliament. The judicial sentence can then be reduced by two thirds, or by half, or sometimes in variance of the two.
In passing a judicial sentence, the judge is not allowed to take into account the date of parole, or the fact that the accused may be likely to have his sentence reduced by a third. The judiciary does not really determine the length of sentences, and rejection of the amendment would not breach the position relating to Executive and legislative release.
What of the right hon. Gentleman's argument that there should be a variation in sentences for murder? In the case of less heinous murders—the right hon. Gentleman gave the example of the two little girls—the answer is surely the same that we would give if we were discussing euthanasia. There may be some justification for a particular killing, but when the system says no to all killing we at least know that some deterrence exists—that people will be deterred from killing too easily, and that lives that should not be taken will occasionally be saved. That argument applies to euthanasia; it also applies to maintaining standard sentence—uniquely—in cases of murder.
I understand why their Lordships took the view that they did. They did not have to deal with the public, as we do. Although public confidence is a matter for their consideration, it is nothing like as much a matter for their consideration as it is for the consideration of Members of this democratically elected House of Commons. I would guess that public opinion was the reason behind the Cabinet's refusal to adopt the view of the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) when he served in a Labour Government.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. and learned Gentleman concede that we can all become wiser with the passage of time, especially when a number of people have given thought to the issues and produced reports?

Mr. Lawrence: If that is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's explanation of his position, of course I accept it. I assumed that his position had remained consistent throughout, and that he did not consider the abolition of mandatory sentences acceptable. I know that that point of view was expressed when the last Labour Government were in power. My point is that that Government did nothing to change the position—not just because the right hon. and learned Gentleman held a different view at that time, but because public opinion did as well. The Labour Government took account of public opinion; now we are taking account of what we perceive to be public opinion.
Not only would the removal of the mandatory life sentence constitute a betrayal of the public—who, in a sense, entered into a bargain with the Government who abolished capital punishment that they would, while abolishing it, maintain the deterrence provided by life sentences—but it would constitute a betrayal of the hon. Members who supported the abolition of capital punishment on a number of occasions because the Government had said, "There will still be a deterrent—life sentences." If that deterrent is now removed, many hon. Members—certainly many Conservative Members—who have voted in the past for the retention of the abolition of capital punishment will feel that they would now reach a


very different conclusion. My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) indicates that he is one example: there could be no finer example.
5.15 pm
As I have said, acceptance of the Lords amendment would be a betrayal. In 1962, a kind of pact was made with the British public to enable the Labour Government to abolish capital punishment. Now, acceptance of the amendment would betray all those who were assured that the alternative to capital punishment was the life sentence. That is why my right hon. Friend has made his position clear on the basis of public confidence. He is absolutely right to do so, and his view demands our support as a matter of common sense.
The time may come when we shall be able to contemplate a change from the mandatory life sentence. Given a substantial reduction in the number of violent crimes, the public may then be in a frame of mind to accept the logic of the case. That time, however, is not yet here. Our view was held, after careful consideration, by the Crown prosecution service when it gave evidence to the Committee in the other place; it was also held—again, after careful consideration—by the Police Federation, until it decided to change its mind last week and a police murderer was released on parole. Right or wrong, such decisions are no less likely to be made when there is no mandatory life sentence than when there is.

Mr. Kenneth Hind: I support the rejection of the Lords amendment.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) made a telling point when he reminded us that Members of the other place have no constituents. In many respects, their beliefs do not reflect the views of the public; they are not listening, in the pubs and clubs, to what the public genuinely feel about this important matter.
I speak not only as a representative of the public, but as one of the few hon. Members now present who has had the opportunity to defend accused persons in murder trials on more than one occasion. I shall never forget the atmosphere of those trials, and the sense of the seriousness of the matters with which they had to deal.
The background of today's debate is the rise in the number of murders in the United Kingdom in the past few years. Some of those murders involved the use of guns during the commission of offences of dishonesty; others involved the indiscriminate killing of victims unknown to their murderers. My hon. Friend the Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) is clearly concerned to hear that. Murder is a heinous and terrible crime: the public recognise it as such, and so should we.
In 1967, the Labour Government abolished the death penalty. There was a free vote, and the matter was debated fully. The death penalty was abolished, however, on the understanding that it would be replaced by the life sentence. That reflected the strength of public feeling, and the seriousness of the offence in question. That feeling still prevails. How many hon. Members who are sitting here now receive letters from the public saying that the life sentence should mean life?

Mr. John Greenway: My hon. Friend asks how many hon. Members are sitting here, but not many hon. Members are here; it would be different if we were

discussing dogs. Does not that show that the majority of Conservative Members support what the Home Secretary is doing?

Mr. Hind: Precisely.
The seriousness with which the public view the imposition of the life sentence for the offence of murder cannot be underestimated. Our sentencing policy does not follow the principle that life means life, but for serious offences such as terrorist murders, indiscriminate killings, gangland murders anmd other offences at the top of the scale, judges make recommendations. How many times have we read that a judge recommended that a minimum of 30 years be served? That is the way in which judges convey to the man in the dock, to the public and to the courts the seriousness with which they view such crime.
I defended a woman who suffered from post-natal depression and killed her child. I placed her in a different category from a gangland member who murders a drug courier because he betrayed the system. The gradations in offences can be met by the existing system.
We must respect the public's views. When somebody commits the offence of murder, the sentence must reflect the seriousness of the offence. The Lords amendment is an unnecessary dilution of the public's strong feelings and of the need to emphasise the terrible nature of the offence.
I support one point that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) made. He sensibly said that the judge hears all the evidence and sees all the witnesses, including the accused if he gives evidence, and reads the social inquiry and psychiatric reports. Where the judge recommends what the sentence should be, it should be followed by the Home Office. I feel much disquiet about sentencing by Ministers and not by judges. The split between the independence of the judiciary and of Ministers is being eroded. I urge Ministers to take note of what the judge says. The existing system can continue without the interference of the Lords amendment and I recommend that the House rejects it.

Mr. John Greenway: I must refer to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), whose views I much respect. I was deeply shocked by his remarks. What he suggested as the policy of the Police Federation is an ill-thought-out policy that it should reconsider and, in due course, reverse.
I share my hon. Friend's passionate belief that our police deserve all the protection that Parliament can provide. On 17 December last year, I opened the debate on the restoration of the death penalty, and I share my hon. Friend's profound belief that, if the death penalty were available for the murder of a police officer, less police officers would be murdered.

Mr. Hattersley: Fewer.

Mr. Greenway: I stand corrected.
We must accept the decision of the House, but it is an important point and not one to be made the subject of a trivial intervention. If we cannot have capital punishment for the murder of a police officer, we want a certain penalty. It is better to have the certain penalty of a mandatory life sentence, flawed though that is—the thrust of the debate has been the extent to which it is flawed and where we should strike the balance—because life does not


mean life under the present system, and even less so under part II of the Bill, where we are trying to achieve more certainty in sentencing.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge is wrong in his assessment that the courts will provide a deterrent in sentencing someone who has murdered a police officer and that that is a greater deterrent than the mandatory sentence. No one will be aware of the sentence until after a police officer has been murdered. We are on the slippery slope of finding out subsequently.
I have considerable sympathy with the Police Federation's disappointment at the decision of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. I know well that many police officers were disappointed, but I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and to the Police Federation that the one man who knows what it is like to make the difficult decision whether to release on parole the murderer of a police officer, following the recommendation of the Parole Board, is my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. He has argued well this afternoon for the retention of the mandatory life sentence, and therefore the retention of a system in which he and his successors will be confronted with that difficult decision.

Mr. Shersby: As a former Metropolitan police officer, my hon. Friend understands only too well, as he said in his speech, the reaction of the Metropolitan police and of other police forces to the circumstances surrounding the Shepherd's Bush murder. He will know that when I spoke to the police conference in May, I made it clear that in my judgment it was an important issue for it to consider. I left it in no doubt that the 20-year sentence was important. In my final remarks, I paid tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and pointed out that he had to make that difficult decision, of which I fully approved.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's comments, but the decision that the Police Federation has taken, which he announced to the House this afternoon, is based on a knee-jerk reaction to one difficult case and is not properly thought out.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: My hon. Friend kindly referred to me and he will know that the Home Secretary often has to make difficult decisions. In the Shepherd's Bush case, I was bound by decisions that had been taken by my predecessors, as the House knows. I have no doubt that the Police Federation will reconsider its views, for the simple reason that, if it supports the Lords amendments, the undertaking that Sir Leon Brittan gave the House in 1983, and which was confirmed by me—that anybody convicted of killing a policeman would serve at least 20 years—then falls. I doubt whether the Police Federation has considered that, but I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby) will draw it to the federation's attention.

Mr. Greenway: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. His comments will have been helpful to the House and to people outside.
Some points made in the interesting speech of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) go to the heart of the difference between our views. He said, in effect, that not all murderers deserve a

life sentence. But every murder victim has already been subjected to a life sentence. More important, the balance which must be struck should surely be in favour of ensuring that those who should receive a life sentence do so. Only a mandatory sentence delivers that certainty.
Lord Lane argued about the arrangements under the Criminal Justice Acts 1987 and 1988 whereby the Attorney-General has the right to appeal against a lenient sentence—something opposed by the Labour party. I do not believe that we can expect with certainty that the right sentence will be passed on appeal any more than we can expect that the right sentence will be passed by the judge who heard the case. Therefore, there are differences between us as to a murderer's rights.
The right hon. Member for Sparkbrook talked about a civil right and justice being denied because of mandatory sentences. Again I ask: justice for whom—for those who kill or for those who are killed? The fulcrum of the problem rests on that issue. Do Members of Parliament believe that there is a sentence for those who commit the most heinous crime of murder which can deter some murderers? I happen to be one of those who believe that it can deter. That is why I believe that the Government and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary are right to come down firmly against their Lordships' amendment and to call upon the House to reject it.

Mr. Hind: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Greenway: I shall not give way because I wish to make further comments, and time is pressing.
We must bear in mind the far-reaching changes in sentencing policy that are already included in the Bill, particularly the provision for the early release of prisoners under part II. There will be major, fundamental changes in sentencing policy.
In simple terms, before we even consider whether we should abolish the mandatory sentence, we should see how the new provisions in the Bill work in practice. In essence, we are saying that a person who is sent to prison for 15 or 20 years for having committed a serious crime, such as manslaughter, rape or armed robbery, will serve half the sentence. As the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) pointed out, if the mandatory life sentence is abolished, it is still open to the courts to impose a life sentence. I strongly suspect—my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary enunciated this point—that, in practice, judges will impose a fixed term, rather than a life sentence. That will mean that the criminal will serve only half his sentence.
I joined the police just after the murders in Shepherd's Bush. I share the disappointment of my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that the 30-year sentence became only a 25-year sentence, but I do not for one moment believe that judges these days would impose a 50-year sentence. That idea does not stand up. Until we have seen how the arrangements in part II work in practice, we should not go so far as to abolish the mandatory sentence.

Mr. Hattersley: Will the hon. Gentleman turn his mind to a point repeatedly made not by woolly-minded readers of The Guardian but by Law Lords? The Law Lords said that the mandatory sentence was blunting the edge of the deterrent, because it was assumed in popular fiction that every sentence was the same and that it turned out to be nine or 10 years. They believed that what was really needed as a deterrent was a series of headlines stating,


"Policeman's killer sentenced to prison for 25 years." The Law Lords thought that the mandatory argument was working in the other direction.

Mr. Greenway: I should have thought that potential murderers of police officers would see the publicity surrounding the release of John Witney after serving 25 years. I should have thought that potential murderers would hear the message from the House—certainly from Conservative Members—that that is the minimum term that we would expect murderers of police officers to serve.
Those of us who wish to reverse the decision made by their Lordships believe that there is a greater certainty that murderers will serve long sentences if the mandatory life sentence is maintained rather than abolished.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: I do not intend keeping the House long. This has been an interesting debate. Having read the proceedings in Standing Committee and in the other place, I do not know whether, if I were in my old job as a university teacher and were marking the debate out of 100, the score would be better in the other place than in this House, but I suspect that it would be.
Two important principles have come out of the debate. The Government have fallen into some confusion because they have no consistent principle in this complicated matter. Once one gives up pursuing a consistent principle in this matter, one loses one's way. The principle of what goes on in our judicial system was thoroughly discussed in the other place by people involved in the sentencing process.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer) put his finger on the point, referring to four essential principles. He was challenged to say why he did not introduce this change when he was a member of the Labour Cabinet. He was right to say that one does not start where one wants to stop. During the past 15 years, there has been an interesting change in the attitude of influential people in our judicial system—at one end, the judicial lobby and, at the other, the justices and those who represent them in the other place.
There has been an important change in thinking. It has taken a long time for that to happen. Labour Members believe that time is important. We have had 15 years of well-informed debate on this matter, with committee of inquiry after committee of inquiry. Many people at the highest levels of the judiciary have changed their minds in the light of experience. As we pointed out consistently in Standing Committee, most people with some expertise in this matter believe that it is time for a change. If the Lords amendment is reversed, an opportunity will have been missed.
Some people, including the hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind), have talked about the views that will be expressed in the pubs and clubs. We believe that it is important to listen to those views in addition to those of the people involved in the judicial system, but at the end of the day, we must judge, and our judgment is that the country wants an effective deterrent. What the judiciary wants matches what the men and women in the pubs and clubs want. In other words, they want an effective deterrent.
It has become clear from the debate in another place and from the many committees of inquiry that, if the same mandatory penalty were passed for all crimes of murder,

the whole issue of deterrence and the whole range of murders would be confused. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) clearly stated, we feel very strongly that the wicked men who shoot policeman should receive the sentence that they deserve, but there is a difference between such murders and other murders. If the penalty is used right across the board and if the same sentence is given to, at the one extreme, the wicked men who shot three policemen in Shepherd's Bush and, at the other extreme, to the agonised spouse who, at the end of his or her tether, helps his or her partner to die, it will make the deterrent ineffective.
I refer to two hon. Members—

Mr. Hind: The hon. Gentleman referred to what he believed to be the view of people in the pubs and clubs. Does he agree that the man in the street understands that if a bank robber tries to shoot his way out of a corner and kills a police officer, that bank robber knows that he will receive a life sentence and probably more? That is the simple message. The bank robber will receive not merely a life sentence, but probably a recommendation to go with it. The bank robber understands that and will think about it when he has his finger on the trigger.

Mr. Sheerman: That issue is interesting in itself, but it has nothing to do with the debate.
We are not arguing against having a life sentence for the wicked people who perpetrate the crime that the hon. Member for Lancashire, West describes. We want a mandatory life sentence for such an evil deed. However, I wish to refer to the hon. Gentleman's speech.
Another principle that we pursued in judging whether to accept the amendment was that it should not be the job of the Executive to make the decisions or to interfere with the decisions which are properly those of the judiciary. If I remember correctly, the hon. Gentleman said at the end of his speech that there was one issue on which he disagreed with the Home Secretary although he would go dutifully into the Division Lobby at the appropriate time. The hon. Gentleman said that sentences should be determined by judges, not by Ministers. That was the whole point of the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sparkbrook—that, at the moment, the Executive has a very dubious role in these cases.
It has been made clear in the debates in another place —and former Home Secretaries have also been candid about this issue—that it is not the Home Secretary who makes the important decision, but a junior Minister. It is not a junior Minister who has read all the proceedings of the trial, but one who perhaps has a little help from an appropriate civil servant. It is not a Minister who has been briefed or who has read the ramifications of the case. We know what happens and we know that justice is not being done in such cases.
5.45 pm
I refer to the speech made by the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby). If, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) said, the hon. Gentleman's speech holed the Government ship beneath the waterline, surely that of the hon. Member for Lancashire, West blew away the main mast. The hon. Member for Uxbridge made an important point. He said that the Police Federation had changed its mind, and that is an important decision. I know that Conservative Members do not like that, because they prefer the Police


Federation to agree with the broad thrust of their policies. It was the particular case of three policemen who were murdered in a ghastly way about 26 years ago which made the federation realise the problems of having the Executive —a Minister—interfering with what should be left to judges. We may want judges to make specific recommendations of very long, determined sentences for people such as the Shepherd's Bush murderers. That would seem to be the logic of our position and there is nothing wrong with that. We shall defend that logic and, in this instance, we believe that the Police Federation's change of mind shows eminent good sense.
We believe that ideas have changed and that there is now a consensus, not a party-political consensus but one of informed people who believe that the time has come to change the law. We have had a good debate, and there was an excellent one in another place. The Government would be shirking their responsibilities in their duties to the country and to the criminal justice system if they did not, at this late stage, change their mind and support the amendment.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Angela Rumbold): I do not disagree with the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) that we have had a good debate. We have discussed several issues, including the part played by the Home Secretary and by Ministers in the decisions on the length of time that people will spend in custody and the length of time that they will spend out of custody but still on life sentences.
My first point relates to an issue raised by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley). Of course the sentence should be passed by the judge. It is the judge who makes the decision, following and acting on the mandatory penalty set out by Parliament that the crime of murder requires a life sentence. At that point, the case goes to Ministers for them to consider the proportions of the sentence to be spent in custody and those which will be spent on licence.
We also considered the Home Secretary's decisions and discretions and his accountability to Parliament for those decisions. Opposition Members seem to find that accountability difficult to comprehend.

Mr. Gerald Bermingham: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: No. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on, give way."] Not at all. I want to develop my argument a little longer, if I may. The hon. Gentleman has entered the Chamber only recently and has not sat throughout the debate. It would be courteous for me to take the opportunity to answer some of the points made by my hon. Friends. I do not feel that I shall be tempted to allow the hon. Gentleman's interventions.
As I said earlier, one of the most important aspects of the decisions that are taken by the Home Secretary is that he is ultimately accountable to the public. We have heard a great deal about the public's view of the way in which murder is treated and about the way in which the judgments passed by the courts and by the Home Secretary act as a deterrent against more people committing the crime of murder. If Parliament is representative of the people and speaks for them, surely the Home Secretary, who is charged with the keeping of good order and with

ensuring that good order is seen to be kept, is also held to be accountable for his decisions about the length of time that different types of murderers serve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Shersby), in his capacity as spokesman for the Police Federation, rightly pointed to the recent release of Mr. Witney. Mr. Witney has served 25 years of imprisonment for committing a heinous crime. The crime of killing police is considered heinous by all Members of the House of Commons. The hon. Member for Huddersfield and, I suspect, the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer), endorse that view, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge. No one wants people who commit the crime of killing police to be treated other than with the most serious commitment to custody. I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge that we consider a sentence of 20 years to be the very minimum.
The decision on the case was taken after consultation by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary with the Lord Chief Justice. In 1985, Sir Leon Brittan decided, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, that a distinction could be drawn between Witney, who did not fire any shots, and his two co-defendants, who did. The decision to release Witney is based on the advice of the Parole Board that he no longer presents a risk to the public. The risk factor is the cogent factor in the decision making of Ministers or of the Home Secretary about the point at which a person has served the length of time that is suitable as retribution. The remaining issue to be decided is whether the person presents a risk to the public if he is released.

Mr. Archer: Will the right hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Rumbold: I should be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman would allow me to continue, because I have one more point to make about the importance of murder.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) summed up the position well. I find it difficult to accept the notion that one can distinguish between one murder and another. I understand the difficulties that people have, because some murders are premeditated, and are especially ghastly and horrific. For other murders, there may be reasons for saying that one could think more kindly of the person who committed the crime. Essentially, human beings do not have the right to take the life of another person. We have never decided that that is the case. I seriously suggest that, when Opposition Members try to distinguish between one type of murder and another, they do no great service to the general public's view that murder is a serious crime which should attract the most serious penalty—life imprisonment.
Our debate has been interesting. I say to hon. Members who have argued that we should accept the amendment that it would not be a wise move for the House at present if we take seriously into consideration the feelings of the general public about the importance of having clear signals of deterrence for the worst crimes that can be committed by people against others. I for one hope that we shall retain the present system which allows my right hon. Friend and any future Home Secretary the right to take the decision for which he and he alone is accountable to the democratically elected House of Commons.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 158.

Division No. 191]
[5.55 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Freeman, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
French, Douglas


Allason, Rupert
Fry, Peter


Amos, Alan
Gale, Roger


Arbuthnot, James
Gardiner, Sir George


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gill, Christopher


Ashby, David
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Aspinwall, Jack
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Atkins, Robert
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Batiste, Spencer
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gregory, Conal


Benyon, W.
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ground, Patrick


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Grylls, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hague, William


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Boswell, Tim
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bottomley, Peter
Hannam, John


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Bowis, John
Harris, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hayward, Robert


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Brazier, Julian
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Bright, Graham
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hill, James


Buck, Sir Antony
Hind, Kenneth


Burns, Simon
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Burt, Alistair
Hordern, Sir Peter


Butcher, John
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Butler, Chris
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Carrington, Matthew
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Carttiss, Michael
Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas


Cash, William
Irvine, Michael


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Irving, Sir Charles


Chapman, Sydney
Jack, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Janman, Tim


Churchill, Mr
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Conway, Derek
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, James


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Knapman, Roger


Curry, David
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knox, David


Day, Stephen
Latham, Michael


Devlin, Tim
Lawrence, Ivan


Dorrell, Stephen
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Dunn, Bob
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Durant, Sir Anthony
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Dykes, Hugh
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Eggar, Tim
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Emery, Sir Peter
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madel, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Malins, Humfrey


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maples, John


Forman, Nigel
Marland, Paul


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Fox, Sir Marcus
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Franks, Cecil
Maude, Hon Francis





Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Squire, Robin


Mills, Iain
Stanbrook, Ivor


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Sir David
Steen, Anthony


Moate, Roger
Stern, Michael


Morrison, Sir Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Moss, Malcolm
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Mudd, David
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Nelson, Anthony
Stokes, Sir John


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Summerson, Hugo


Nicholls, Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Norris, Steve
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Paice, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Thornton, Malcolm


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thurnham, Peter


Pawsey, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Price, Sir David
Trippier, David


Raffan, Keith
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rhodes James, Sir Robert
Viggers, Peter


Riddick, Graham
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Waller, Gary


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Watts, John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wells, Bowen


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Wheeler, Sir John


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Whitney, Ray


Sayeed, Jonathan
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wiggin, Jerry


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wilshire, David


Shelton, Sir William
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor



Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Speller, Tony
Mr. Irvine Patrick.


NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Allen, Graham
Dalyell, Tam


Anderson, Donald
Darling, Alistair


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Dobson, Frank


Beckett, Margaret
Doran, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Bellotti, David
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Eadie, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Blunkett, David
Edwards, Huw


Boateng, Paul
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Boyes, Roland
Fatchett, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Fearn, Ronald


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Callaghan, Jim
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Derek


Canavan, Dennis
Foulkes, George


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Fyfe, Maria


Carr, Michael
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clelland, David
Gordon, Mildred


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Gould, Bryan


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cox, Tom
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Crowther, Stan
Grist, Ian


Cryer, Bob
Hain, Peter






Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
O'Neill, Martin


Haynes, Frank
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Patchett, Terry


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Pike, Peter L.


Henderson, Doug
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hood, Jimmy
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Radice, Giles


Howells, Geraint
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Richardson, Jo


Janner, Greville
Robinson, Geoffrey


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Rogers, Allan


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Rooker, Jeff


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rowlands, Ted


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Leadbitter, Ted
Sedgemore, Brian


Leighton, Ron
Sheerman, Barry


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Livsey, Richard
Short, Clare


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Skinner, Dennis


Loyden, Eddie
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


McKelvey, William
Spearing, Nigel


McLeish, Henry
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Maclennan, Robert
Strang, Gavin


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McNamara, Kevin
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Marek, Dr John
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wallace, James


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Martlew, Eric
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Maxton, John
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Meacher, Michael
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Meale, Alan
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Winnick, David


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Worthington, Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)



Mullin, Chris
Tellers for the Noes:


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie and


O'Brien, William
Mr. Thomas McAvoy.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 44 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 45, after clause 22, to insert the following new clause—Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment—

" .—(1) Where a court sentences a person to imprisonment for life it shall state in open court—

(a) its reasons for passing that sentence; and
(b) the sentence of imprisonment the court would have passed ("the penal term") if it had not been open to it to pass a sentence of imprisonment for life and it had not taken into account the risk of serious harm to the public if the offender were to be released after a determinate number of years' imprisonment.

(2) The penal term shall be subject to appeal against sentence in the same manner as the sentence of imprisonment for life actually passed on the offender."

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): With this, it will be convenient to consider the following amendments in lieu of the Lords amendment: (a) a new clause—Duty to release discretionary life prisoners—

`.—(1) A life prisoner is a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part if

(a) his sentence was imposed for a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law; and

(b) the court by which he was sentenced for that offence ordered that this section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the order.

(2) A part of a sentence so specified shall be such part as the court considers appropriate taking into account—

(a) the seriousness of the offence, or the combination of the offence and other offences associated with it; and
(b) the provisions of this section as compared with those of section 27(2) above and section 28(1) below.

(3) As soon as, in the case of a discretionary life prisoner—

(a) he has served the part of his sentence specified in the order ("the relevant part"); and
(b) the Board has directed his release under this section, it shall be the duty of the Secretary of State, subject to subsection (7) below, to release him on licence.

(4) The Board shall not give a direction under subsection (3) above with respect to a discretionary life prisoner unless—

(a) the Secretary of State has referred the prisoner's case to the Board; and
(b) the Board is satisfied that it is no longer necessary for the protection of the public that the prisoner should be confined.

(5) A discretionary life prisoner may require the Secretary of State to refer his case to the Board any time—

(a) after he has served the relevant part of his sentence; and
(b) where there has been a previous reference of his case to the Board, after the end of the period of two years beginning with the disposal of that reference; and
(c) where he is also serving a sentence of imprisonment for a term, after he has served one-half of that sentence;

and in this subsection "previous reference" means a reference under subsection (4) above or section 32(4) below made after the prisoner had served the relevant part of his sentence.
(6) In determining for the purpose of subsection (3) or (5) above whether a discretionary life prisoner has served the relevant part of his sentence, no account shall be taken of any time during which he was unlawfully at large within the meaning of section 49 of the Prison Act 1952 ("the 1952 Act").
(7) The Secretary of State may defer a prisoner's release under this section for a period not exceeding six months if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.
(8) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving one or more sentences of life imprisonment; but—

(a) a person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and
(b) subsections (3) and (5) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

(b), a new clause—Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales—

`.—(1) This section applies where, in the case of a transferred life prisoner, the Secretary of State, after consultation with the Lord Chief Justice, certifies his opinion that, if—

(a) he had been sentenced for his offence in England and Wales after the commencement of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above; and
(b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

the court by which he was so sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.
(2) In a case to which this section applies, this Part except section 28(2) above shall apply as if—



(a) the transferred life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part; and
(b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.

(3) In this section "transferred life prisoner" means a person—

(a) on whom a court in a country or territory outside England and Wales has imposed one or more sentences of imprisonment or detention for an indeterminate period; and
(b) who has been transferred to England and Wales, in pursuance of—

(i) an order made by the Secretary of State under section 26 of the Criminal Justice Act 1961 or section 2 of the Colonial Prisoners Removal Act 1884; or
(ii) a warrant issued by the Secretary of State under the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984,

there to serve his sentence or sentences or the remainder of his sentence or sentences.

(4) A person who is required so to serve the whole or part of two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of this Part unless the requirements of subsection (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

(c), in clause 26, page 20, line 10, leave out 'discharges functions' and insert 'makes recommendations'.
(d), in page 20, line 14, leave out `(4)' and insert 'and'.
(e), in page 20, line 17, at end insert—

'(4) The Board shall deal with cases as respects which it gives directions under this Part on consideration of all such evidence as may be adduced before it.'

(f), in page 20, line 24, leave out 'making any recommendations' and insert 'discharging any functions'.
(g), in page 20, line 31, leave out subsection (7).
(h), in clause 30, page 22, line 6, leave out subsection (5) and insert—

'(5) The Secretary of State shall not include on release, or subsequently insert, a condition in the licence of a long-term or life prisoner, or vary or cancel any such condition, except—

(a) in the case of the inclusion of a condition in the licence of a discretionary life prisoner, in accordance with recommendations of the Board; and
(b) in any other case, after consultation with the Board.'

(i), in clause 32, page 23, line 5, leave out from ("Where") to end of line 7 and insert
'on a reference under subsection (4) above the Board—

(a) directs in the case of a discretionary life prisoner; or
(b) recommends in the case of any other person, his immediate release on licence under this section, the Secretary of State shall give effect to the direction or recommendation.'

(j), in clause 35, page 24, line 14, leave out 'the Prison Act 1952'.
(k), in clause 37, page 25, line 15, leave out `directe' and insert 'ordered'.
(l), in page 25, line 19, leave out subsection (2).
(m), in clause 41, page 27, line 11, leave out from `above' to end of line 19 and insert

'in subsection (5)(a) after the words "in the case or there shall be inserted the words "the licence of a long-term prisoner or", and subsection (6) shall be omitted.'

(n), in clause 42, page 27, line 26, at end insert—

'discretionary life prisoner" has the meaning given by section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) above (as extended by section 36(2) above;'.

(p), in page 27, line 27, leave out `28(4)' and insert (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners)(8)'.
(q), in page 27, line 35, at end insert—

'sexual offence" and "violent offence" have the same meanings as in Part I of this Act.'

(o), in page 27, line 39, at end insert—

'(3) Nothing in this Part shall require the Secretary of State to release a person who is serving—

(a) a sentence of imprisonment for a term; and
(b) one or more sentences of imprisonment for life,

unless and until he is entitled under this Part to be released in respect of each of those sentences.'

(r), in page 27, line 39, at end insert—

'(3) Subsections (2) and (3) of section 25 of this Act shall apply for the purposes of this Part as they apply for the purposes of Part I of this Act.'

(s), in schedule 10, page 90, line 26, at end insert—

Orders of the Day — 'Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (c.47)

.—(1) In section 2 of the Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984 (transfer of prisoners out of United Kingdom), in subsection (4)(b), for sub-paragraph (i) there shall be substituted the following sub-paragraph—

"(i) released on licence under section 27(1)(b) or (2), (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners)(3) or 28(1) or (2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;".

(2) In section 3 of that Act (transfer of prisoners into United Kingdom), after subsection (8) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9) The provisions contained by virtue of subsection (1)(c) above in a warrant under this Act shall, in the case of a prisoner to whom section (Life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (discretionary life prisoners transferred to England and Wales) applies, include provision specifying the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of that Act (duty of Secretary of State to release discretionary life prisoners)."

(3) In paragraph 2 of the Schedule to that Act (opera' ion of certain enactments in relation to prisoners transferred into United Kingdom)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (1), for the words from "section 60" to "of that section" there shall be substituted the words "section 27(1)(b) or (2), (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners)(3) or (5) or 28(1) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991 whether the prisoner has at any time served a particular proportion or part of his sentence specified in that provision,"; and
(b) in sub-paragraph (2), for the words "one third" there shall be substituted the words "any particular proportion or part".

(4) In paragraph 3 of that Schedule, for the words "section 61 of the Criminal Justice Act 1967" there shall be substituted the words "section 28(2) of the Criminal Justice Act 1991".'
(t), in schedule 11, page 93, line 13, at end insert—

'6A.— (1) This paragraph applies where, in the case of an existing life prisoner, the Secretary of State certifies his opinion that, if—

(a) section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act had been in force at the time when he was sentenced; and
(b) the reference in subsection (1)(a) of that section to a violent or sexual offence the sentence for which is not fixed by law were a reference to any offence the sentence for which is not so fixed,

the court by which he was sentenced would have ordered that that section should apply to him as soon as he had served a part of his sentence specified in the certificate.
(2) In a case to which this paragraph applies, Part II of this Act except section 28(2) shall apply as if—

(a) the existing life prisoner were a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of that Part; and
(b) the relevant part of his sentence within the meaning of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act were the part specified in the certificate.



(3) In this paragraph "existing life prisoner" means a person who, at the commencement of Part II of this Act, is serving one or more of the following sentences, namely—

(a) a sentence of life imprisonment;
(b) a sentence of detention during her Majesty's pleasure or for life under section 53 of the 1933 Act; or
(c) a sentence of custody for life under section 8 of the 1982 Act.

(4) A person serving two or more such sentences shall not be treated as a discretionary life prisoner for the purposes of Part II of this Act unless the requirements of sub-paragraph (1) above are satisfied as respects each of those sentences; and subsections (3) and (5) of section (Duty to release discretionary life prisoners) of this Act shall not apply in relation to such a person until after he has served the relevant part of each of those sentences.'

Lords amendment No. 57, after clause 25, to insert the following new clause—Review of life sentences by Tribunal—

".—(1) The Secretary of State shall refer the case of every life prisoner to the Tribunal for review not later than two years before the expiry of the penal term applicable to his case.
(2) The Tribunal may direct—

(a) the release on licence of a life prisoner convicted of murder;
(b) the release of a life prisoner convicted of an offence other than murder—

(i) on licence; or
(ii) unconditionally.

(3) In determining whether to direct release the Tribunal shall have regard to the risk of the life prisoner's committing further serious offences and the need to protect the public against that risk.
(4) The Secretary of State may revoke the licence of any life prisoner whose release on licence has been directed by the Tribunal and recall him to prison if it appears to the Secretary of State that it is expedient in the public interest to do so and shall in that event refer the case of the prisoner so recalled to the Tribunal for further consideration so soon as practicable.
(5) A life prisoner whose case is referred to the Tribunal under this section shall have the right—

(a) to make representations to the Tribunal either orally or in writing;
(b) to be legally represented before the Tribunal; and
(c) to call witnesses on his behalf,

and shall be given such information about his case and about the matters under consideration by the Tribunal as will enable him effectively to exercise those rights.
Provided that the Tribunal may direct that there shall be no disclosure of any material which the Tribunal considers that it would not be in the public interest to disclose.
(6) If the Tribunal determines not to direct the release of a life prisoner (whether convicted of murder or of some lesser offence) the Secretary of State shall refer his case to the Tribunal for further consideration within such period (not being longer than three years from the date of the previous determination) as the Tribunal may direct.
(7) Where the Tribunal directs the release of a life prisoner other than one convicted of murder it may also direct the length of time for which the licence is to remain in force.
(8) If the Tribunal gives no direction as to the length of a licence under subsection (7) above, it shall review the licence—

(a) within three years from the date of the Tribunal's decision to release the offender on licence; and
(b) before the expiry of any subsequent period of three years,

and shall on any such review either terminate the licence or direct the length of time for which it is to remain in force.
(9) It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State to give effect to any directions given by the Tribunal in regard to a life prisoner whose case is referred to it under this section.
(10) In this section "penal term" means the sentence of imprisonment which the court is required by section (Court's duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) to state in open

court as being the sentence it would have passed had it not passed a sentence of imprisonment for life and it had not taken into account the risk of serious harm to the public if the offender were to be released after a determined number of years' imprisonment.
(11) In this Part "life prisoner" means a person serving a sentence of imprisonment for life."

Government motion to disagree.

No. 58, in clause 28, page 21, line 20, leave out subsections (2) to (4).

Government motion to disagree.

Government amendments to Lords amendment No. 58: (a), in page 21, line 21, leave out 'and' and insert `together'.

(b), in page 21, line 22, leave out 'a life prisoner on licence' and insert
'on licence a life prisoner who is not a discretionary life prisoner'.
(c), in page 21, line 26, leave out subsection (4). No. 62, in page 22, clause 32, line 35, leave out ("or life")

Government motion to disagree.

No. 65, in page 27, clause 41, line 6, leave out ("in subsection (1)")

Government motion to disagree.

No. 66, in page 27 clause 41, line 8, leave out ("subsection") and insert ("section")

Government motion to disagree.

No. 67, in page 27, clause 42, line 27, leave out ("28(4)") and insert
("(Review of life sentences by Tribunal) (11)")

Government motion to disagree.

Mrs. Rumbold: This group of amendments is concerned with the arrangements for determining when life sentence prisoners should be released from custody. The amendments propose new procedures that would apply to all life sentence cases both where the life sentence is mandatory—that is, murder—and where it is discretionary.
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary argued earlier that a life sentence should remain the mandatory sentence for the crime of murder and that the Home Secretary should retain the responsibility for deciding when offenders convicted of that crime should be released. I invite the House to disagree with the amendments in so far as they seek to apply to mandatory life sentence procedures which place the decision on the release of convicted murderers in the hands of a tribunal once the period set by the trial judge has expired.
You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have already ruled amendments Nos. 56 and 115, which seek to set up a life sentence tribunal, out of order on the ground that they are outside the terms of the money resolution.
We should bear in mind that the background against which we must consider changes to our procedures in life sentence cases is the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in the case of Wilson, Gunnell and Thynne. That judgment concerned only discretionary life sentence cases, and the courts drew a clear distinction between mandatory and discretionary cases.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Is the right hon. Lady's position on this issue compatible with the equivalent legal provisions concerning prisoners in Scottish prisons?

Mrs. Rumbold: Separate legislation governs the review and release of discretionary life sentence prisoners in


Scotland. There are differences in practice and procedure between Scotland, England and Wales. The same principles apply, however, and we recognise that Scottish legislation will also need amending to take account of the findings of the European Court of Human Rights.
The court's reasoning, with which I agree, was that in mandatory cases, as opposed to discretionary cases, the lawfulness of detention for life is determined from the outset by the trial judge. The sentence does not fall into the successive elements of punishment for the offence, followed by detention for so long as is necessary to protect the public, as it does in discretionary cases. It therefore does not follow that mandatory life sentence prisoners are entitled, after a certain part of the sentence has been served, to have their cases reconsidered by an independent judicial body.
The Government amendments that are offered in lieu of Lords amendment No. 45, and the amendments to the words restored by disagreement with amendment No. 58, concern only discretionary life sentence cases. There has never been any doubt that our procedures in those cases would need to be changed in the light of the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights. On 20 February, I said that my right hon. Friend would give the matter full consideration and would lay proposals before the House when he had completed various considerations. We are now doing that.
My right hon. Friend would not conceal that he would have preferred to have a little longer to digest all the implications of the judgment and to consult rather more widely about the proposals. However, we have been asked by the House and by the other place for amendments to be introduced in the Bill—that is what we are now doing. The amendments in my right hon. Friend's name do precisely what we have been asked. I will now outline their main features. The House will see that, in substance, the procedure proposed is quite similar to that proposed in the Lords amendments.
Provision is made for the trial judge to announce in open court the term within a discretionary life sentence which is commensurate with the seriousness of the offence. That term will be open to appeal in the same way as a determinate sentence. One the term set by the trial judge has been served, the prisoner's continued detention will be based on the risk that he poses to the public, rather than the seriousness of the offence.
It would be open to the trial judge, exceptionally, not to set a term. That would be an indication that the crime which had been committed was so wicked that detention for life was justified according to the seriousness of the offence alone, irrespective of the risk to the public. Such a life sentence prisoner would therefore be in the same position as a mandatory life sentence prisoner. The question of his eventual release would therefore be a matter for the Secretary of State.
In all other discretionary life sentence cases, the prisoner would be entitled to have his continued detention after the term set by the trial judge reviewed by an independent body having the status of a court for the purposes of the European convention on human rights. We propose that that body should be the Parole Board, operating under a special set of procedures which would be laid down in rules made by the Secretary of State under clause 26(5).
We intend that the panel of the Parole Board which will consider discretionary life sentence cases will be chaired by

a judge who is a member of the board, and one of its members will be a psychiatrist. The prisoner will be entitled to appear before the panel and be legally represented. If the panel concludes that the prisoner's continued detention is no longer necessary to protect the public, the Parole Board will direct the Secretary of State to release him. The Secretary of State will then be obliged to release the prisoner on licence, subject only to a power, exceptionally, to delay release for up to six months if it is in the public interest to do so—for example, because the release of a terrorist prisoner would otherwise coincide with some sensitive terrorist incident.
The proposals include transitional provisions for prisoners who are already serving discretionary life sentences. They will become eligible for review by the Parole Board in its new capacity once their existing tariffs have been served. My right hon. Friend's proposals also cover a number of other cases not dealt with in the Lords amendments, including prisoners sentenced concurrently to more than one life or determinate sentence, and prisoners transferred from other jurisdictions to serve their sentences in England and Wales.

Dr. Godman: I am extremely grateful to the Minister of State for showing her characteristic courtesy in giving way. With such a prisoner, where stands the local review committee? Is it to be bypassed by the panel that the right hon. Lady mentioned? The panel will be made up of, among others, a psychiatrist and a judge. Am I to take it that the local review committee has no place in the scheme of things?

Mrs. Rumbold: That is the case in respect of the proposals that we are bringing forward for England and Wales. The Parole Board will subsume the work done by the local review committee. I shall take account of the hon. Gentleman's question about the situation in Scotland and report to him.
The proposals meet in full the requirements of the European Court. I hope that the House will accept them in preference to the tribunal amendments introduced in the other place.

Mr. Sheerman: We do not want to make a meal of this, but it is interesting to note the Government's transformation in terms of the speed and the manner in which they have reacted since the Bill went from a Committee of this House to another place. We welcome some of the reactions that the Government have announced, but we are still worried that what the Minister of State has announced will not quite meet the criteria that the European Court of Human Rights has erected. If that is the case, we shall certainly force the matter to a Division.
The new proposals still leave the United Kingdom in breach of the European convention on human rights and liable to challenge before the European Court on a future date. We all know—we have long discussed it—that the new clauses do not meet all the points in the two judgments, which stem from a long time ago. Characteristically, the Government have waited a long time to respond to the judgments in the case of Weekes of 1987 and Thynne, Wilson and Gunnell of October 1990.
The Government's thought process started in 1987, which is a long time ago. When we pressed the matter in Committee, we were told that there was still a long road


ahead before we could get any definitive answer. We now seem to have an answer, because the Government have been pushed by the other place to make some decisions.
The proposals from the other place are superior to the Government's reaction, so unless the Minister of State has a total change of heart and mind, we shall oppose the Government amendments.
Subsection (7) of the new clause gives the Home Secretary power to defer an offender's release for up to six months after the date directed by the Parole Board
if he is satisfied that exceptional circumstances exist which justify such a deferment in the public interest.
We have sought eminent legal opinion on this matter, but that subsection flies in the face of the European Court's ruling, which requires an open court-like body, not the Executive, to decide on a release date. I do not want to return to the debate that we have just had, but one of our central reservations about both the mandatory life sentence and the discretionary life sentence clauses is that we believe that the principle of the Executive interfering in the judicial process is fundamentally wrong. We believe that the European Court of Human Rights will not accept such further executive interference. It is surprising that the Government have acted as they have, given that they were given a clear direction from the court. I am sure that their legal counsel must be saying, as ours is, that their proposal will not meet the criteria set down.
It is hard to envisage why the Home Secretary needs the additional power. The Parole Board could delay a prisoner's release until a suitable hostel was available. In what circumstances would there have to be a delay? We should hate to be political, but would the delay occur when a release would be politically embarrassing, such as just before a general election? Do the Government want the reserve power of six month's grace for reasons of political sensitivity? We want to know why that delay should be built in.
The European Court has made it clear that the decision must be made by a court. We should like to have the details spelt out, and we are not satisfied that the "court-like" criterion specified by the European Court will be met by statutory regulation. The Minister should fill in a little more detail about how the system will work. Our legal counsel suggested that, within the framework of the Bill, statutory regulations could not introduce a sufficiently court-like body. We may be wrong, and we never like to be too categorical about such legal matters, but our eminent counsel has suggested that that is so. Will the Minister clarify that point? We should love to know why the Government could not announce their proposal in Committee. It seems that what the Minister has suggested would not allow a totally open hearing, in which the prisoner could appear and be legally represented.
The Government's proposals do not seem to provide any safeguards. Government amendment (e) to Lords amendment No. 45 merely states:
The Board shall deal with cases as respects which it gives directions under this Part on consideration of all such evidence as may be adduced before it.
That is fairly opaque. Will the Government be making new rules to that effect? The Bill gives the Government power to make rules about the board's proceedings, but such basic rights should surely be on the face of the Bill. This is

an important issue and it worries us that it is being introduced through the back door and not on the face of the Bill.
Given the Minister's previous responsibilities, she will know only too well that the nearest equivalent to the Parole Board's role in respect of lifers is the mental health tribunal, where patients can be represented and obtain legal aid for the purpose. We believe that, without legal aid and representation, lifers will have little chance of arguing their case in a meaningful way. Unfortunately, many of them are mentally disordered. For example, Thornton received a life sentence for setting fire to two curtains, Bilton received a life sentence for setting fire to a bed and Block received a life sentence for setting fire to a dustbin in an empty warehouse and then calling the fire brigade. All those tragic cases involved people who were mentally disordered. The Minister should state clearly whether legal aid will be available in such cases.
The burden of proof as to whether a prisoner is safe seems to have been reversed. Now, the prisoner must satisfy the board that he or she is safe, rather than the board having to demonstrate that the prisoner's incarceration is necessary. The Minister did not make that clear.
The Government have introduced the provision at a late stage, and it is not possible for us to amend it. That is a disgraceful way to deal with a major Bill in this Parliament. The Government have not had a heavy legislative timetable, and this was the main Bill in the Queen's Speech. Surely it deserved better treatment through the legislative process, and we should have been forewarned of such developments. Given the time that the Government have had to think about the legislation, it has been handled in a disgraceful way.
We tabled amendments from Committee stage onwards, but the lawyers involved in bringing the original case before the European Court are understandably angry that, having spent years trying to get the legislation changed, they do not now have the opportunity to comment, as they would have done if the change had been introduced a little earlier. If the Government had made their reaction to the judgment of the European Court clear, the people most involved would have had a chance to react, not just in a negative way, but so as to make the legislation better.
As worded, the Government's proposal applies only to life sentences imposed for violent or sexual offences. It is feasible that a person could receive life for other offences. Does the definition include, for example aggravated burglary? Will such offences be covered by the Government's provisions?
The wording suggests that the proposals come into effect only where the original sentencing court orders that they should. Does that mean that the original court can effectively veto the prisoner's right to use procedures under the European convention? That is not clear from what the Government have said to date. That point must be clarified now because this is the last opportunity to do so.
My remarks have been based on two factors. First, the Government should have met the strictures and criticisms of the European Court much earlier than they have. Secondly, due to the late timing of the Government's proposals it will be difficult to refine the legislation. The Minister knows that, during the passage of the Bill, we have had some bitter, contentious and principled arguments and disagreements, but we have also had some


lively co-operation. I think that Ministers and Committee members will agree that the Opposition have improved the Bill no end during its process. That is our constitutional duty and right as Her Majesty's Opposition. We have tried to fulfil that duty and we have bitterly opposed some aspects of the Bill. Unless we receive satisfactory replies, we shall have to disagree with the proposition that the European Court's strictures have been met in full.

Mr. Maclennan: I share the anxieties of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) about whether the Government's proposals will rectify the wrong to which the European Court of Human rights has drawn attention. I am not satisfied that the Government's provisions, which were tabled late, are sufficient for the purpose.
Although the facts of the Thynne case that found this country to be in breach of article 5.4 of the European convention turned on a discretionary life prisoner's sentence, I am not entirely clear whether the court rested its arguments on the fact that the life sentence was discretionary as opposed to mandatory. There is a risk that other cases involving mandatory life sentences may now go before the European Court. The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold) referred to the narrowness of the finding, and the case certainly deals with a non-mandatory situation. Has the Minister taken advice on the width of the European Court's finding?
6.30 pm
This exceptional new clause, which allows the Secretary of State to
defer a prisoner's release … for a period not exceeding six months
seems to run across the court's finding. On what provision of the European convention do the Government rely in importing the exceptional provision set out in subsection (7)? That alone may result in our being drawn back into contention in the European Court.
I have tried to follow the Minister's description of the new procedure, but it does not seem to meet the underlying reasoning of the European Court, which was clearly set out in the judgment. It said that the review that it considered necessary should be
sufficiently wide to consider the conditions justifying, according to the Convention, the special type of deprivation of liberty ordered against these applicants".
Its findings reaffirmed the Weekes judgment that neither the Parole Board nor judicial review proceedings satisfy the requirements of article 5(4). The Government appear to be refining the procedures to be followed by the Parole Board. It seems to me as a layman that the European Court will not be satisfied that the review will be sufficiently wide to
consider the conditions justifying, according to the Convention, the special type of deprivation of liberty".
The Minister delivered her speech with a great deal of celerity and I should like to hear more, because the issue is important. It is embarrassing for this country to be dragged back and forth to the European Court on such issues. Moreover, it is late in the Bill's proceedings for the Government to make such a proposal in the feasance of the proposals from another place, which have been carefully considered by a number of lawyers who have tried to meet the European Court's objections to this country's proceedings. I hope that the Minister will reply at some length on those points.

Mr. Tom Cox: I agree with the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) about the problem of our going backwards and forwards to the European Court, which will continue to happen increasingly unless we straighten out the clause.
We must give hope to those now serving life sentences in our prisons. I have experience of prisons because Wandsworth prison is in my constituency and I also serve on the board of Wormwood Scrubs, which is the life assessment area unit for the south of England. Over the years, I have met and got to know many men serving life sentences. Some of them have committed the most horrendous offences and will say—if they are honest with themselves, as they start to become after a while—that the severity of their crimes were such that they would expect to remain in prison for the rest of their lives. I fully accept that anyone who takes life has committed a serious offence.
The Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Morden (Mrs. Rumbold), is doing the rounds of prisons so she must also get to know inmates and hear about their case records. 1 often wonder, when I meet men who are serving life sentences, what I would have done in those circumstances. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) outlined the kind of person that we are discussing—they have little hope of ever being released—but there are others who need to be given some hope.
I fully accept that judges who hear a case have a right to make an observation to the Home Secretary, and the Home Secretary has a right to bear in mind the information that he receives from those who work in the establishments where lifers are kept. However, when a prisoner appeals for consideration of release, far too many inmates serving life sentences are given no hope that there will come a time when they can appeal and be given a date for their release. That must surely be an important criterion if we want genuine reforms in our prisons. I assume that all hon. Members, irrespective of party, want reforms. One certainly hears repeatedly from Ministers that the Government seek such reforms. If the ever-increasing number of inmates serving life sentences follow the rules and are not put on report, they should have the right to be given a degree of hope that there will come a time when they can appeal for release, with all the conditions that then follow.
When I meet lifers in Wandsworth prison and Wormwood Scrubs, they complain bitterly to me about the lack of opportunity that they are given. That is why, as the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland said, they feel that the way in which the Home Office is dealing with their case is unjust. They then ask the Court of Human Rights to deal with it.
What does subsection 5(a) mean by the words
after he has served the relevant part of his sentence"?
What period of time are we talking about? I am concerned about inmates serving life sentences who hope that one day they will be released. Many inmates find it increasingly difficult to find out when they might be released, because so much secrecy surrounds the reasons why inmates are not given the dates on which their sentences will be terminated and for how much longer they will remain in prison.
Within the past few days, I have received a letter from the Minister of State concerning a constituent of mine who is serving not a life sentence but 12 years for an offence


involving the use of firearms, which I accept is a serious matter. My constituent has served about five years, has applied for release and has been turned down. No reasons were given. As an inmate in a category C prison, as a result of downgrading from a category A to a category C prison, surely he has some right to believe that he will be released in the near future. I beg the Minister to try to understand the problems caused for governors and prison officers when an inmate, who has followed all the rules of behaviour as he or she understands them and has not committed the most horrendous of crimes—we are not arguing about that—has been knocked back, to use the jargon, about the date of release.
It is about time that the Government were open about what is being proposed, and especially about this amendment. I should have thought that the comments and observations of the Law Lords and of the other place are very relevant to it, and it is regrettable that the Home Secretary is seeking to remove it.
As other hon. Members have said, the Home Secretary or the Minister of State should spell that out. Irrespective of party, Members of Parliament have to deal with inmates who write to them in great detail and with great frequency asking, "Why is this happening to me?" It would be helpful if the hon. Lady could answer some of my questions about secrecy. Why is there not more openness about the reasons for decisions which go against an inmate? Why is more hope not given to inmates who, although they may have committed a serious crime by taking someone else's life, feel that they have no hope of being given a release date so that they can start to live a normal life with their families and, one hopes, start to become of benefit to society? That is surely what prison reform in its broadest sense means, and I hope that we shall hear about that from the Minister when she replies.

Mrs. Rumbold: The hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) raised many issues, but began by castigating us for not coming forward with our responses to the European Court's judgment earlier. I remind him that that judgment in October 1990 was not a foregone conclusion and had no predictable outcome, as he well knows. He also suggested that the Lords amendments were a superior solution to the amendments that the Government have tabled. That is not correct, because, among other things, they failed to confer new review rights on existing prisoners such as Gunnell, Wilson and Thynne, and the Government amendments provide for such review procedures.
The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) asked about the way in which the new parole boards will operate. Our amendment provides that the parole boards will have the final say about the release of discretionary life sentence prisoners—that is the effect of subsection (3) of amendment (a) which is proposed by the Government in lieu of amendment No. 45.
The panel of the parole board that considers such cases will be chaired, as I said in my opening remarks, by a judicial member of the board and the prisoner will be able to present his case and be legally represented. In answer to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, prisoners whose cases are before the board will be eligible for legal aid under the normal rules.
The prisoner will be present and the board will have exactly the same status and procedures as a court, as the European Court of Human Rights proposes. The hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland seems to doubt whether that will be the case. Parole board tribunal arrangements will be very different from those referred to by the European Court of Human Rights in the Weekes judgment, to which he referred. The board, operating as a tribunal, will be a court and will be accepted as such for ECHR purposes and I hope that that reassures him.
Specific procedures are not set out in the amendment, but will be dealt with in rules made under clause 26(5) of the Bill, as I am sure the hon. Member for Huddersfield will be glad to know.
6.45 pm
Cases in which a term will not be set will be entirely a matter for the sentencing judge's discretion, if he feels that it is right to state a minimum. We think that it would be wrong to limit his discretion.
The hon. Member for Huddersfield asked whether aggravated burglary would qualify and the answer is yes, if a life sentence is given. The hon. Members for Huddersfield and for Caithness and Sutherland both mentioned the Home Secretary's power to delay release, and I think that the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland suggested that that might be a loophole. The judgment of the European Court of Human Rights recognised that a limited power to deny release might be justified in some circumstances on the grounds of what it termed expediency.
The Home Secretary is always accountable to Parliament for any decisions to use that power, and he has a responsibility to protect the public and to prevent serious disorder, as we said in earlier debates. I submit that he must be in a position to discharge that responsibility by delaying a lifer's release when there are compelling reasons to believe that it would cause some form of public outrage.
In my opening remarks, I cited the example of the release of a terrorist on the anniversary of a tragedy caused by his actions which was to be marked by a public meeting. That might turn a peaceful demonstration of public feeling into something very different and very nasty. I am certain that the House will agree that the Home Secretary should be in a position to prevent that by delaying release for a short period. I assure the House that that power would be used only in the most exceptional circumstances.
At the end of the debate, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox) mentioned a number of matters and asked what the "relevant part" of a life sentence means. It means that part of the sentence that is the number of years announced by a judge in open court at the time of sentencing. This time period is also subject to appeal in the normal way, as he may know. The hon. Member spoke at some length about inmates who have no information about when their sentence may come to an end. That is not quite correct, as it is my understanding that most lifers are told early in their sentence when the first formal review of their case will be heard, which gives a clear sign of the length of time that they are likely to be in custody.
Although it is not apparent that the hon. Member for Huddersfield is paying a great deal of attention to the responses that I have given, I think that it is clear to hon. Members who have listened that they have satisfactorily answered the matters that he raised. I believe that the Government's proposals, as outlined in the amendments,


are the correct ones and that they will satisfactorily answer the points that were raised by the European Court of Human Rights.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 219, Noes 147.

Division No. 192]
[6.49 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Fry, Peter


Aitken, Jonathan
Gale, Roger


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Gardiner, Sir George


Allason, Rupert
Gill, Christopher


Amess, David
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Amos, Alan
Goodlad, Alastair


Arbuthnot, James
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Ashby, David
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Aspinwall, Jack
Gregory, Conal


Atkins, Robert
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Grist, Ian


Batiste, Spencer
Ground, Patrick


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Benyon, W.
Hague, William


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Body, Sir Richard
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hanley, Jeremy


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Hannam, John


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bowis, John
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Harris, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Haselhurst, Alan


Brazier, Julian
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bright, Graham
Hayward, Robert


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Buck, Sir Antony
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Burns, Simon
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Burt, Alistair
Hill, James


Butcher, John
Hind, Kenneth


Butler, Chris
Hordern, Sir Peter


Carrington, Matthew
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Carttiss, Michael
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Cash, William
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Irvine, Michael


Chapman, Sydney
Irving, Sir Charles


Chope, Christopher
Jack, Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Janman, Tim


Conway, Derek
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Day, Stephen
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Latham, Michael


Dunn, Bob
Lawrence, Ivan


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Emery, Sir Peter
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Evennett, David
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Favell, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Fishburn, John Dudley
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Fookes, Dame Janet
Maclean, David


Forman, Nigel
McLoughlin, Patrick


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Madel, David


Fox, Sir Marcus
Malins, Humfrey


Franks, Cecil
Maples, John


Freeman, Roger
Marland, Paul


French, Douglas
Marlow, Tony





Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Stewart, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Stokes, Sir John


Mills, Iain
Sumberg, David


Mitchell, Sir David
Summerson, Hugo


Moate, Roger
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Mudd, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Neale, Sir Gerrard
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Neubert, Sir Michael
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholls, Patrick
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Norris, Steve
Thornton, Malcolm


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thurnham, Peter


Paice, James
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Trippier, David


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Viggers, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Pawsey, James
Waller, Gary


Raffan, Keith
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Riddick, Graham
Watts, John


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela
Wheeler, Sir John


Ryder, Rt Hon Richard
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Hon Tom
Widdecombe, Ann


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Wiggin, Jerry


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wilshire, David


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Wolfson, Mark


Shersby, Michael
Wood, Timothy


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Hon Nicholas



Speller, Tony
Tellers for the Ayes


Squire, Robin
Mr. Tim Boswell and


Stanbrook, Ivor
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Dewar, Donald


Allen, Graham
Dixon, Don


Anderson, Donald
Dobson, Frank


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Doran, Frank


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bellotti, David
Fatchett, Derek


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fearn, Ronald


Bermingham, Gerald
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Boateng, Paul
Fisher, Mark


Boyes, Roland
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Derek


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Foulkes, George


Callaghan, Jim
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Canavan, Dennis
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Gould, Bryan


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Graham, Thomas


Cohen, Harry
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Corbett, Robin
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cox, Tom
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Haynes, Frank


Cryer, Bob
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Dalyell, Tam
Henderson, Doug


Darling, Alistair
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hood, Jimmy






Howell, Rt Hon D. (S'heath)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Geraint
Radice, Giles


Hoyle, Doug
Randall, Stuart


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Richardson, Jo


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Robinson, Geoffrey


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Rogers, Allan


Kirkwood, Archy
Rooker, Jeff


Leadbitter, Ted
Rowlands, Ted


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Ruddock, Joan


Livingstone, Ken
Sedgemore, Brian


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Short, Clare


McKelvey, William
Skinner, Dennis


McLeish, Henry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Maclennan, Robert
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


McMaster, Gordon
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Madden, Max
Snape, Peter


Marek, Dr John
Spearing, Nigel


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Strang, Gavin


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Martlew, Eric
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Maxton, John
Wallace, James


Meacher, Michael
Walley, Joan


Meale, Alan
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Mullin, Chris
Winnick, David


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Worthington, Tony


O'Brien, William
Young, David (Bolton SE)


O'Neill, Martin



Patchett, Terry
Tellers for the Noes:


Pike, Peter L.
Mr. Thomas McAvoy and


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 45 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (t) made in lieu thereof

Clause 1

RESTRICTIONS ON IMPOSING CUSTODIAL SENTENCES

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, leave out lines 9 to 13 and insert
("punishable with a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law.")

7 pm

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. John Patten): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 14.

Mr. Patten: These amendments bring offences which are triable only on indictment within the scope of the restrictions on the use of custody in clauses 1 and 2. We debated this issue in Committee and the issues have been well aired both on the Floor of the House and in Committee. We have also had the benefit of some extremely good debates in another place. The amendments substantially improve the present position on indictable offences.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments No. 2 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 3, in page 2, line 25, leave out subsections (7) and (8).

Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment we will discuss Lords amendments Nos. 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 29, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 133, 134 and 141.

Mr. Patten: The main purpose of this group of amendments is simply to clarify and to some extent restructure the arrangement of the provisions of part I of the Bill. That reflects the views expressed in another place, especially by the judiciary. The changes do not affect the substance of the provisions in any way, although the opportunity has been taken to remove any possibility of inconsistency in the interpretation of the provisions as they affect multiple past or current offences. We have benefited from debates in Committee and in another place on these amendments.

Mr. Sheerman: I shall speak briefly to Lords amendment No. 9. This amendment and the subsequent linked amendments provide that the courts must normally consider a pre-sentence report before imposing a custodial sentence for an offence which is triable only on indictment. Those changes were made by the Government in response to Opposition amendments. When the Government react to Opposition amendments, we are always pleased. But before the changes the Bill required the courts to consider a pre-sentence report, which would normally be prepared by the probation service, before imposing a custodial sentence for an offence which was summary or triable either way.
If an offence was triable only on indictiment, courts could pass custodial sentences without considering such a report, if the offender had previously served a prison sentence.
There are two reasons why it is right that a requirement for pre-sentence reports should be extended to indictable-only offences. It is worth repeating them, even though, as the Minister said, the matter has been covered elsewhere.
First, such reports explore possible alternatives to a custodial sentence and advise the courts of them. That helps to ensure that courts do not pass custodial sentences without considering possible alternatives. Consideration of alternatives is just as relevant to many indictment-only cases as it is to offences which are summary or triable either way.
Secondly, probation reports contain objective information about the offender's background and circumstances and about his or her attitude to the offence. Those may be important factors in assessing how far mitigating factors are present. That can be crucial, first, to the decision on whether the offender deserves custody and secondly, if he deserves custody, to the decision on the length of the sentence in the light of the offender's degree of culpability.
The considerations that I have described are just as relevant in indictment-only cases as in summary or either-way cases. The second consideration that I mentioned answers the argument by people who ask what is the point of insisting on a pre-sentence report in cases where the offence is so serious that realistically the only question is how long the sentence will be.
When the matter was debated in Committee, the Government strongly resisted similar amendments. Their change of heart since the Bill was considered in the House of Lords is to be welcomed, even if it is belated.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 13, after clause 3 to insert the following new clause—Additional requirements in the case of mentally disordered offenders—

(".—(1) Subject to subsection (2) below, in any case where section 3(1) above applies and the offender is or appears to be mentally disordered, the court shall obtain and consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law.
(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply if, in the circumstances of the case, the court is of the opinion that it is unnecessary to obtain a medical report.
(3) Before passing a custodial sentence other than one fixed by law on an offender who is or appears to be mentally disordered, a court shall consider—

(a) any information before it which relates to his mental condition (whether given in a medical report, a pre-sentence report or otherwise); and
(b) the likely effect of such a sentence on that condition and on any treatment which may be available for it.

(4) No custodial sentence which is passed in a case to which subsection (1) above applies shall be invalidated by the failure of a court to comply with that subsection, but any court on an appeal against such a sentence—

(a) shall obtain a medical report if none was obtained by the court below; and
(b) shall consider any such report obtained by it or by that court.

(5) In this section—

"duly approved", in relation to a registered medical practitioner, means approved for the purposes of section 12 of the Mental Health Act 1983 ("the 1983 Act") by the Secretary of State as having special experience in the diagnosis or treatment of mental disorder;
"medical report" means a report as to an offender's mental condition made or submitted orally or in writing by a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved.

(6) Nothing in this section shall be taken as prejudicing the generality of section 3 above.")

Mr. Patten: I beg to move that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may take the following: amendment (a) to the Lords amendment: after subsection (4) insert—

'(4A) For the purpose of facilitating the making and submission of medical reports, the Secretary of State shall by regulations make provision for the establishment of duty psychiatrist schemes in courts to which this section applies.
(4B) Regulations made under subsection (4A) above may be made so as to apply only in specified areas.'

(b) in line 32, at end insert—
'duty psychiatrist scheme" means a scheme which provides for the psychiatric examination of the mental condition of offenders by a registered medical practitioner who is duly approved.'
Lords amendments Nos. 48, 101 and 107 to 110.

Mr. Sherman: The intention of Lords amendment No. 13 is to require courts normally to consider a medical report before passing a custodial sentence on an offender who is or appears to be mentally disordered. The amendment was tabled by the Government in response to amendments tabled by Peers in the all-party penal affairs group, with the support of the Opposition.
Following discussions on this issue in the House of Commons, in the Committee stage in another place the Government initially amended clause 3 to require a court before passing a custodial sentence on a mentally disordered offender, first, to consider any information before it which relates to his mental condition, whether in

a pre-sentence report, a medical report or otherwise, and, secondly, to consider the likely effect of such a sentence on that condition and on any treatment which may be available for it.
However, that measure did not require the court to obtain a medical opinion if such an opinion was not already before it. Therefore, it achieved little, because it is likely that a court would in any case consider any information that it had available on the offender's mental condition.
The strengthened amendment to place a duty on the court normally to obtain a medical report is therefore a significant improvement on the present legal position. However, if the provision is to work properly, it will require the establishment of a duty psychiatrist scheme at courts throughout the country to enable reports on mentally disordered defendants to be prepared speedily. Otherwise, the courts may obtain reports by remanding defendants to the suicide-inducing conditions of prison medical wings. That would be far from the intention of all those who have pressed for the provision in Lords amendment 13 to be included in the Bill. The case for including in the Bill a statutory requirement to establish duty psychiatric schemes is important to us. I wish to speak about that too because our amendments and the Government's amendment are part of this group.
We were keen to amend the Bill in Committee because even the research by Professor Gumm—inspired and financed by the Home Office—found that possibly 20 per cent. of people in our prisons are suffering some kind of mental disorder. That number has steadily increased.
It is not surprising that the Government are criticised for their care in the community policy, because we have all seen people in our constituencies who are in need but who are no longer sent to mental institutions for treatment and care. Because of that policy an increasing number of men and women suffering from some kind of mental disorder are on our streets, perhaps begging. Crisis at Christmas investigated those sleeping rough in London the Christmas before last and found that a high percentage were suffering from a mental disorder.
Nowadays, an increasing number of people who go to prison for a range of criminal acts, usually of a reasonably minor nature, are suffering a mental disorder. Should the Minister ever visit prisons and talk with prison governors, I am sure that he would accept that the constant refrain one hears on such occasions is: "These people should not be here. They never used to be. We are not trained to look after and care for them. They belong in a special category."
In Committee, we tabled an amendment to introduce a duty psychiatric scheme whereby psychiatrists would be on call in courts so that a rapid assessment could be made of the mental state of a person should anyone in the court suggest that that person had a problem. The essential reasoning behind our amendment is a desire to change the existing circumstances for those suffering from a mental disorder. We want to offer courts another option instead of the traditional one of remanding someone in custody for psychiatric reports. We want to deter the courts from such action.
People who are under great stress and who have a history of mental disorder are sent to prison—to some of the worst, dark Victorian institutions. That is most dangerous. It is tragic, but not surprising, that a large


number of such people proceed to attempt to commit suicide, many successfully. Others do ghastly things to themselves, such as self-immolation.
We want to introduce an early-warning system so that a psychiatrist can appear at a court to give a rapid assessment of a defendant so that that person does not have to go to prison. We are seeking to achieve that early warning system with the introduction of a duty psychiatric scheme.
In response to our amendments, the Government have argued in this House and another place that a scheme would place too onerous a responsibility on the medical profession at this time. However, if we phased in that psychiatric scheme, surely that would be an acceptable solution to any problem.
Successful experiments have already been undertaken in a number of courts in London and Peterborough. We believe that the psychiatric scheme should be spread to other courts as resources allow. If the Government accept the amendment, we believe that that would act as an incentive for the introduction of such schemes. [Interruption.] The Minister and his hon. Friends may ask whether I have the resources, but the psychiatric scheme would save thousands of pounds. When a prisoner is remanded in custody for psychiatric reports it is usually for two weeks. I believe that the scheme could be cost-neutral at the very least, because every time we stop someone from going into prison who should not be there we are saving enormous amounts of money.
7.15 pm
The report that the Government commissioned from the Home Office showed that possibly 20 per cent. of prisoners suffer from a mental disorder. If we cut that number in half, the savings to the Exchequer from that 10 per cent. who avoided prison would still be prodigious. The Minister is aware that that is true. Avoiding sending some people to prison represents an enormous saving every week and every month. I do not believe that the duty psychiatric scheme would be an expense. It would save money, but perhaps I should hedge my bets and say that it would be cost neutral. If we proved that cost neutrality we should extend the scheme throughout the country. We are confident that remarkable savings would be made.
We believe that the Bill should contain a duty on the Government, as resources become available, to extend a psychiatric advice scheme to all our courts. The scheme could be introduced on the basis of priority, as I believe that the inner-city courts have a greater need for such a scheme than other courts.
We believe that the amendment is common sense, and we hope that even at this late stage we have converts in the Minister and the Government.

Mr. John Patten: While responding to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) on the Opposition amendment to amendment 13, I will, if I may, speak strongly in favour of Lords amendment No. 13. I shall also speak to Lords amendment Nos. 48 and 101 and Nos. 107 to 110.
We discussed the problems associated with the sentencing and treatment of mentally disordered offenders a number of times during the passage of the Bill. We all agree that more should be done to ensure that courts have

the necessary information when sentencing an offender who might be mentally disordered so that wherever possible he received treatment as well as punishment or, best of all, treatment without punishment, from health or social services departments under the Mental Health Act 1983. That is our desire.
I have been much influenced by the words of wisdom that I have received over the years from my hon. Friend the Member for Cheltenham (Sir C. Irving) who has taken such a notable interest in the problems facing the mentally disordered.
As I said on Report on 20 February, the problem is to find a way of squaring the circle to enable the courts to identify and to obtain reports quickly on those suspected of being mentally disordered without defeating the pourpose of the exercise by having to put them on remand in custody for a long period awaiting those reports. I said then that we would continue to work on the problem and that we would introduce amendments in another place. We have done so and the amendments before us now are the fruits of those labours.
Lords amendment No. 13 makes new provision for the obtaining of psychiatric reports in cases where the offender appears to be mentally disordered. An exception is provided in subsection 2 of the new clause introduced by the amendment for cases where the court does not consider it necessary to obtain a medical report. That may, for example, be because the court already has sufficient information about the offender's mental condition without needing to call for a new report to be prepared.
The House will agree that the provision represents a considerable step forward in ensuring that full account is taken of an offender's mental condition before sentence is passed.
With regard to the Opposition amendment to Lords amendment No. 13, there is no disagreement between the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) and myself about the value of duty psychiatrist schemes. I have visited such schemes, and have been a strong proponent of the experimental schemes that have pleased the hon. Gentleman so much. The question is simply whether an amendment such as that proposed is necessary in order to achieve the objective of promoting the development of new schemes.
The Opposition amendment seems to imply that those concerned with the running of magistrates courts are thought unlikely to create duty psychiatrist schemes unless the Secretary of State compels them to do so by means of a statutory instrument. I can assure the House that that is not the case. Courts such as that in Peterborough, and projects in Hertfordshire such as the Hertfordshire Care Trust, have introduced some valuable schemes. I stress that those are local initiatives, centrally supported. That is the advantage of schemes that arise in response to local conditions rather than being imposed from the top downwards, as the hon. Member for Huddersfield would wish.
The Government have introduced a substantial package of measures which will be of considerable benefit in ensuring that mentally disordered offenders are properly taken care of within the criminal justice system, yet which avoids the dangers to which I referred throughout earlier debates. I hope that the House agrees that those measures more than fulfil the commitments that I gave in Committee. I commend them to the House.

Question put, That the amendment be made:

The House divided: Ayes 137, Noes 181.

Division No. 193]
[7.21 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Kirkwood, Archy


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Leadbitter, Ted


Allen, Graham
Leighton, Ron


Anderson. Donald
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Livsey, Richard


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Loyden, Eddie


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Beckett, Margaret
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Bell, Stuart
McKelvey, William


Bellotti, David
McLeish, Henry


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Maclennan, Robert


Bermingham, Gerald
McMaster, Gordon


Blunkett, David
Madden, Max


Boateng, Paul
Marek, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Callaghan, Jim
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Martlew, Eric


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Maxton, John


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meacher, Michael


Carr, Michael
Meale, Alan


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
Mullin, Chris


Corbett, Robin
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Cox, Tom
O'Brien, William


Crowther, Stan
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter L.


Darling, Alistair
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Primarolo, Dawn


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dewar, Donald
Randall, Stuart


Dixon, Don
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Doran, Frank
Richardson, Jo


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Robinson, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Rogers, Allan


Eadie, Alexander
Rooker, Jeff


Edwards, Huw
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Ruddock, Joan


Fatchett, Derek
Sedgemore, Brian


Fearn, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fisher, Mark
Short, Clare


Flynn, Paul
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Foulkes, George
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Fraser, John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Fyfe, Maria
Snape, Peter


Galbraith, Sam
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Graham, Thomas
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Haynes, Frank
Wigley, Datydd


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Henderson, Doug
Winnick, David


Hood, Jimmy
Worthington, Tony


Howells, Geraint
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Hoyle, Doug



Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Janner, Greville
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)



NOES


Adley, Robert
Amos, Alan


Allason, Rupert
Arbuthnot, James


Amess, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)





Arnold, Sir Thomas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Ashby, David
Harris, David


Aspinwall, Jack
Haselhurst, Alan


Atkins, Robert
Hayward, Robert


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Batiste, Spencer
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv" NE)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Hill, James


Benyon,W.
Hind, Kenneth


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hordern, Sir Peter


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Body, Sir Richard
Irvine, Michael


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Irving, Sir Charles


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Janman, Tim


Boswell, Tim
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Bottomley, Peter
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Key, Robert


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Kilfedder, James


Bowis, John
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Kirkhope, Timothy


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Knapman, Roger


Bright, Graham
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Knox, David


Burns, Simon
Latham, Michael


Butcher, John
Lawrence, Ivan


Butler, Chris
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Lightbown, David


Carrington, Matthew
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Carttiss, Michael
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Cash, William
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Chapman, Sydney
McLoughlin, Patrick


Chope, Christopher
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Madel, David


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Marland, Paul


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Marlow, Tony


Cran, James
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Curry, David
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Day, Stephen
Mills, Iain


Dorrell, Stephen
Moate, Roger


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Monro, Sir Hector


Dover, Den
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Dunn, Bob
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Durant, Sir Anthony
Nicholls, Patrick


Dykes, Hugh
Norris, Steve


Eggar, Tim
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Emery, Sir Peter
Patnick, Irvine


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Patten, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
Pawsey, James


Favell, Tony
Raffan, Keith


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Fookes, Dame Janet
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Forman, Nigel
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Fox, Sir Marcus
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Freeman, Roger
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


French, Douglas
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Fry, Peter
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Gale, Roger
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Gardiner, Sir George
Speller, Tony


Gill, Christopher
Stanbrook, Ivor


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Goodlad, Alastair
Stern, Michael


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Stevens, Lewis


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Stokes, Sir John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Summerson, Hugo


Gregory, Conal
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Grist, Ian
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Ground, Patrick
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Grylls, Michael
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Thornton, Malcolm


Hague, William
Thurnham, Peter


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Hanley, Jeremy
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Viggers, Peter






Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Waller, Gary
Wolfson, Mark


Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Watts, John
Yeo, Tim


Wells, Bowen



Wheeler, Sir John
Tellers for the Noes:


Whitney, Ray
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Widdecombe, Ann
Mr. David Davis.


Wilkinson, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 13 agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

COMMUNITY SERVICE ORDERS

Lords amendment: No. 22, in page 8, line 22, leave out ("sections 17A and 17B below") and insert
("paragraphs 3 and 4 of Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders) to the Criminal Justice Act 1991 (reciprocal enforcement of certain orders)")

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd): With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 23, 105, 112, 135 to 137, 164, 166 to 168 and 171.

Mr. Patten: This group of amendments makes sensible arrangements for persons subject to certain community sentences imposed by a court in England or Wales to carry out the sentence in Scotland—incidentally, I see that the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) is with us—or Northern Ireland if that is their normal place of residence. It also makes arrangements for an offender convicted or sentenced in Scotland or Northern Ireland to carry out the sentence in England or Wales if that is where he or she lives. The amendments bring the existing provision for reciprocal enforcement up to date in the light of the new framework for community penalties provided in the Bill, which has been widely welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 15

INCREASE OF CERTAIN MAXIMA

Lords amendment: No. 24, in page 12, line 19, leave out ("or disobediences")

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 25 to 28, 30 to 40, 113 and 114.

Mr. Patten: The amendments deal with unit fines. Most of them improve and clarify the unit fine arrangements set out in clauses 16 to 18. The unit fines system has been widely welcomed and we are extremely grateful to the official Opposition for the welcome in principle that they have given to unit fines.
The amendments make no significant changes to the principle of the unit fines system as debated in the House. They simply deal with certain practical difficulties in the

operation of the scheme, identified both in Committee and in the other place, or bring the unit fine provisions more closely in line with existing legislation concerning the imposition of fines, or are consequential on other drafting changes in part I of the Bill.

Mr. Maclennan: The Minister referred to the welcome given to the unit fines system by the official Opposition. Let me take this opportunity to make it clear that my right hon. and hon. Friends had been advocating day fines long before they became known as unit fines, so we, too, welcome the proposals.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 22

COMMITTALS FOR SENTENCE

Lords amendment: No. 41, in page 18, line 3, leave out second ("the").

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 42, 43, 46, 47, 139, 140, 148 and 170.

Mr. Patten: Taken together, the amendments make a number of minor changes to committal proceedings. In particular, I would bring to the attention of the House one very important amendment—amendment No. 46, which increases the maximum penalties that may be imposed on those found guilty of bomb hoaxes. In the magistrates courts, an offender will now be liable to a maximum sentence of six months—the longest sentence that such a court may impose for a single offence—as opposed to three at present. The maximum sentence that a bomb hoaxer might receive in the Crown courts will increase from five years to seven years—and quite right too. I am sure that I say that with the agreement of the whole House, because a bomb hoax is an irresponsible waste of other people's time and efforts. It can cause great inconvenience to many people. It can also endanger lives by making it harder to identify and respond to genuine warnings.
Let me give one example to show why we consider the amendment so important. The House will recall that, last February, a bomb was discovered at Paddington. In the 24 hours after that bomb was discovered, 84 hoax calls were made by people with sick and demented minds and a further 800 hoax calls were made the following week. In view of that spate of hoaxes, I announced at an earlier stage during the passage of the Bill that I would conduct a review of the maximum penalties to be made available. The new maximum penalties provide a clear indication of the seriousness with which the House regards the offence, and I believe that the general public will welcome the new provisions. I note that increasingly severe sentences have recently been handed down within the old maximum of five years—and quite right, too.

Mr. Sheerman: The official Opposition certainly agree with what the Minister said about bomb hoaxers. I should, however, like to make two points, very briefly.
We all regret not only the terrorism that was responsible for the ghastly events at Victoria station—and, indeed, the recent spate of bombings—but the resulting death and serious injuries. It was because we were in the


midst of the Committee stage of the Bill when the Paddington and Victoria bombs exploded that we debated the subject at such length.
We support the Government's determination to deal firmly with the hoaxers, but I should like to introduce a word of caution. Either intentionally or because of a slip of the tongue, the Minister said that a number of hoax calls were made by sick and demented people. The Opposition believe strongly that psychiatric services should be available in courts; we also believe that there are far too many mentally disordered people in prison.
We do not want the amendment to catch in the net even more people who, being mentally disordered, are very suggestible, and may be tempted to commit such stupid crimes. I agree with the Minister that, whoever commits them, they can result in an ineffective response to genuine emergencies and crises, and must therefore be dealt with seriously: we recognise that stringent penalties should be applied. Hoax calls are a dangerous game; indeed, they are hardly a game at all, for they are playing with people's lives. I hope, however, that it will be possible to differentiate between normal hoax callers and mentally disordered people who are sucked into such activity, and thus to deter those who should know better.

Mr. John Patten: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who picked up my loose use of English. Rather than simply referring to "sick and demented minds", I should have used the words "sick and demented, or evil and bad". I believe that the majority of people who carry out bomb hoaxes deserve the severe punishment that the amendment would provide, because I believe in evil and in the vileness of human nature.

Mr. Sheerman: Many of the amendments that we are discussing are being taken in clusters, but I feel that some that might not otherwise be debated should be "flagged up". On this very day, a ten-minute Bill relating to the abolition of the Vagrancy Act 1824 was passed, having been presented by a Conservative Back Bencher. Given that his party is currently in power, it was an historic occasion. It is, surely, not entirely coincidental that we should now be debating a group of amendments one of which—No. 47—proposes a change in the penalties imposed on those who sleep rough.
The Opposition do not intend to divide the House on the amendment, but we feel that it represents only a tiny step in the right direction. We are disappointed that the Government did not grasp the opportunity offered by Opposition amendments to repeal sections 3 and 4 of the Vagrancy Act. Homelessness is an appalling problem. We believe that the explosion in the number of roofless people sleeping rough in the streets has been generated by three main areas of Government policy: cuts in benefit, the disastrous implementation of the "care in the community" programme—which resulted in the closure of mental institutions—and the discharge of mentally ill people into the streets without any support. A further problem has been the dramatic contraction in the amount of affordable housing.
Only today—ironically—I was telephoned by the prison department of the Home Office. I was asked whether I, as the local Member of Parliament, could give the department the name and address of a prisoner who

had been writing to me regularly. The Department did not know where to write to the prisoner, because he had been discharged to "no fixed abode".
7.45 pm
That telephone call brought home to me very starkly how much more needs to be done to improve the prison system, and to implement the recommendations of the Woolf report. The prisoner in question—a Mr. Sheehan —used to be one of my constituents; he used to write to me. Following his release, no one knows where he is. I shall, of course, try to track him down: I shall refer to all the addresses that I have on my file. None the less, he may be one of the vagrants who will sleep rough tonight in central London. In any event, I wish him well; I hope that he has a job, and a roof over his head.
The Government's response to the problem has been to provide some accommodation in London this winter—and to use the criminal law to sweep the streets clean of homeless people. They still see homelessness as a crime.

Mr. John Patten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to intervene in what I expected to be a short and uncontentious speech.
The hon. Gentleman said that, during the winter, the Government provided some accommodation and then proceeded to use the criminal law to sweep the streets clean. At that time, my hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning provided more than an adequate number of housing places in central London for anyone who wanted to take them. I am sorry to say—it does the hon. Gentleman's argument no good at all—that some people simply refuse to take such places even when they are available.

Mr. Sheerman: I am tempted to break into a song called, I believe, "The Streets of London", and to ask the Minister not exactly to walk down those streets hand in hand with me, but to meander down some of the streets that I visit regularly in the evenings on the way back to my flat. I should like to show him all the homeless people who are still living on the street.
The Opposition do not believe that the Government's response has been adequate so far. Some extra places have been provided to shelter the homeless, and the Metropolitan police have tried harder to move people away from the city centres. Part of the Government's response, however, has been to clean up the streets so that homeless people are not visible, because of the volume of public protest about them.
Even if they are not visible, the homeless are still there. Although none of us likes it, begging is a manifestation of poverty and homelessness. Young people who are denied employment, benefits and housing often have no alternative. They must beg to survive. An amendment tabled in the other place would have denied the courts power to fine people who were sleeping rough and begging peacefully, and left them power to deal with professional beggars. After the Napoleonic wars, many returning soldiers were considered a nuisance, but surely we have no place for such laws today. Young people are often denied the power to free themselves from the streets.
As I have said, the Government had a perfect opportunity to throw out the Napoleonic statute and to accept that homelessness is a social problem. They seem, however, to be rather confused about the issue. They have introduced some measures to tackle homelessness in


London, but they have done too little, too late. This was yet another desperate attempt to ameliorate some of the worst consequences of the past 12 years of Conservative Government.
Independent experts estimate that between 1,000 and 1,500 people still sleep rough in London—two or three times as many as the Government estimate. I challenge the Minister to dispute that. Although Government policy has not gone far enough, there appears to be some recognition that homelessness is a social problem and that social solutions are necessary to resolve it.
The Minister thought that I would be non-controversial, but I shall quote the comments of Earl Ferrers in another place. He has the measure of the problem and understands its underlying nature, although he was unwilling to accept the logic of repealing the Napoleonic code. He said:
It is important to get one issue absolutely straight. Homelessness and poverty are social matters of great concern. They should be tackled. One likes to think that that has been done albeit not hard enough or successfully enough under other legislation … The fact that there may be more beggars coming on to the streets is a matter for great regret. It is also something which we are all greatly concerned about"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 April 1991; Vol. 527, c. 1635.]
If homelessness is not a criminal problem but a social one, the Vagrancy Act should be repealed. The amendment goes but a little way towards doing so, but it is typical of the Government to sit on the fence. They should visit a London court in the morning and see the lot of the vagrant. The way in which we use the Vagrancy Act, which could have been swept away, is shameful. The greatest pressure to get rid of the Act is coming from barristers and solicitors who work in the courts of London and other big cities because they know what a ghastly travesty it has become.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: We have now reached Lords amendment No. 56. I am satisfied that the Lords amendment imposes a charge upon the public revenue, such as is required to be authorised by a resolution of the House and that such charge has not been so authorised, and accordingly, pursuant to paragraph (3) of Standing Order No. 76, the Lords amendment is deemed to be disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 57 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 58 disagreed to.

Government amendments (a) to (c) made to the words so restored to the Bill.

Lords amendment No. 59 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 60 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 61 agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 62 disagreed to.

Lords amendment No. 63 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 64, after clause 39, to insert the following new clause—

Persons extradited to the United Kingdom

(".—(1) A short-term or long-term prisoner is an extradited prisoner for the purposes of this section if—

(a) he was tried for the offence in respect of which his sentence was imposed—

(i) after having been extradited to the United Kingdom; and

(ii) without having first been restored or had an opportunity of leaving the United Kingdom; and

(b) he was for any period kept in custody while awaiting his extradition to the United Kingdom as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(2) If, in the case of an extradited prisoner, the court by which he was sentenced so ordered, section 67 of the 1967 Act (computation of sentences of imprisonment) shall have effect in relation to him as if a period specified in the order were a relevant period for the purposes of that section.
(3) The period that may be so specified is such period as in the opinion of the court is just in all the circumstances and does not exceed the period of custody mentioned in subsection (1)(b) above.
(4) In this section—

"extradited to the United Kingdom" means returned to the United Kingdom—


(i) in pursuance of extradition arrangements;
(ii) under any law of a designated Commonwealth country corresponding to the Extradition Act 1989;
(iii) under that Act as extended to a colony or under any corresponding law of a colony; or
(iv) in pursuance of a warrant of arrest endorsed in the Republic of Ireland under the law of that country corresponding to the Backing of Warrants (Republic of Ireland) Act 1965;

"extradition arrangements" has the meaning given by section 3 of the Extradition Act 1989;

"designated Commonwealth country" has the meaning given by section 5(1) of that Act.")

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment addresses the vexed issue of prisoners who have spent time in custody abroad awaiting extradition to this country and responds to the concern expressed in Committee by the right hon. and learned Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer).

Mr. Stuart Randall: As the Minister said, the amendment deals with people who are extradited to the United Kingdom. It was referred to in Committee by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warley, West (Mr. Archer). It was moved by the Government in response to an amendment moved by the noble Lord Thomas of Gwydir at the request of Prisoners Abroad and supported by the official Opposition and peers on the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group.
Although the Lords amendment does not go so far as the amendment moved in Committee by the noble Lord Thomas, it has been welcomed by Prisoners Abroad as a useful compromise. It enables the judge to recommend that a specified period spent in custody abroad should count towards the sentence. By taking account of that time, the new clause should end the anomaly of such prisoners being sentenced to less than the proper term. The Opposition would have liked those held in custody abroad to be given the same automatic credit as those held on remand in this country. Nevertheless, we welcome the new clause as a move in the right direction.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments 65 to 67 disagreed to.

Clause 45

VIDEO RECORDINGS OF TESTIMONY FROM CHILD WITNESSES

Lords amendment: No. 68, in page 29, line 20, leave out ("and proceedings in youth courts")

8 Pm

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take Lords amendments Nos. 69 to 73 and 116 to 118.

Mr. Patten: I hope that the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) is not about to leave the Chamber. I am about to pay her a compliment and I should like her to be in the Chamber to receive it.
The amendments make further refinements to the Bill's provisions about the rules of evidence and procedure for child witnesses—the so-called Pigot clauses, about which we had extremely good debates in Committee. The amendments are intended to bring about an easier and more uniform application of the new provisions. I pay due compliments to the representatives of the official Opposition who made their voices heard in Committee. I cannot do the same in respect of the Liberal Democrats because, alas, they were not represented there, for reasons which I understand. I know of the long-standing interest of the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan) in this matter.
If I may speak over the heads of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, I should like to say that the hon. Lady made a splendid, substantial and lasting contribution to improving the way in which children and their plight are dealt with in court. She did so because of her interest in this issue over the past two or three years.
The amendments will be widely welcomed, and I commend them to the House.

Mrs. Llin Golding: I thank the Minister for his kind words, but we do not have the system right yet. I welcome the Lords amendments because they strengthen the clause on video-recording children's testimony.
I deeply regret the fact that an amendment allowing further implementation of the Pigot report was lost in the other place, partly because the Liberal Democrats voted against allowing children to give video-recorded evidence in pre-trial proceedings. The amendment would have saved many children the trauma of having to wait a long time to give evidence in a trial, and even though the amendment would not have affected a court's flexibility to recall a case if new evidence having a significant effect on the outcome was produced, the Liberal Democrats voted against it.
I very much regret the fact that the Bill does not include a measure for which I have fought for many years and which would have permitted video-recorded evidence to be used if a child's life was likely to be placed at serious risk if he or she appeared in court. That small amendment would have been rarely used but would have strengthened the Bill.
Having commissioned the Pigot report, the Government appear to have decided that it goes too far down the road towards providing a fair trial for a child and the accused. Despite all their fine words and all the injustices that have been done to children over many years, they have failed to give true justice to children in our courts.
I ask the Minister one last favour. Will he undertake to provide official data to enable research to be carried out

into delays in the prosecution of child abusers? I understand that the Nuffield Foundation is providing funding to Joyce Plotnikoff and her team to carry out research. It would help if official data were supplied to that lady. The evidence may help the Minister to do another U-turn and implement all the recommendations in Judge Pigot's report.

Dr. Godman: I hesitate to speak in an English debate, but I agree with the Minister that the Lords amendments refine clause 45, on video recording the testimony of child witnesses, and clause 46, which is an important clause.
I was not a member of the Standing Committee, but I am gratified by the Minister's comments about the involvement of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding) in these matters. I offer my compliments to the Minister, his colleagues and officials for what is, from a Scottish perspective, astonishing legislation.
The Bill is remarkable, and I say that without rancour or resentment. Last year, I attempted to change the law in Scotland by plagiarising these clauses and including them in the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) (Scotland) Bill. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton), paid me the compliment of accepting an amendment on television links but, disappointingly, he refused to accept a remarkable innovation enabling video-recorded interviews to be used, where appropriate as evidence.
It is important to interview, as soon as humanly possible after an investigation, a child who may be involved in the appalling circumstances about which we are speaking. The longer the delay between investigation and an interview using video recordings, the greater the dangers. All that was said in Standing Committee.
I should like to warn the Minister. I appreciate the fact that the Orkney cases are under investigation, but there was severe criticism of the way in which children alleged to have been involved in sexual abuse cases were interviewed by so-called professionals. Will cognisance be taken in the guidelines of the mistakes made in the Orkneys?
How many courts have television links and how often have those links been used in child abuse cases? Has the Home Office commissioned research into the use of such links? What training will be given in interviewing children where video recordings are used in evidence?
I profoundly regret the fact that the Minister's Scottish Office colleagues chose not to follow the path taken in the Bill. Investigations are carried out in Scotland into allegations about dreadful cases of sexual and child abuse. I am convinced that, if we had similar legislation in Scotland, children would be spared the humiliating ordeal of giving evidence in court within a few feet of the accused.
One of the most modern courtrooms in the United Kingdom must be Glasgow sheriff court. I do not know the names of the architects, and perhaps they should remain nameless, but in that most modern court which deals with child abuse cases—they are also dealt with in the High Court—the child witness is placed within 12 feet of the alleged perpetrator of the abuse. From an architectural point of view, if nothing else, that is a living disgrace. The architects should have been advised to take into account the problems facing child witnesses in such cases.
Despite some of the excellent extant legislation on family law and children, there is no doubt that in


attempting to ease the burden faced by children in such circumstances, English law is ahead of Scottish law. To me, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, that is a matter of deep regret.

Mr. John Patten: I thank the hon. Member for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) for his kind words about the Home Office and Home Office Ministers. I am used to bouquets coming to me from all angles from Scottish hon. Members—for instance from my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Perth and Kinross (Sir N. Fairbairn), who is not in the Chamber tonight—but I rarely receive them from Glasgow. A compliment from the hon. Gentleman is extremely welcome, and I thank him for it. The design of the sheriff courts in Scotland is not a matter for me, but I shall draw the hon. Gentleman's strictures on architectural matters to the attention of the Lord Advocate who, I believe, has ministerial responsibility for such issues north of the Border. As always, there is a difference between the two jurisdictions, but I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will consider carefully whether there are any lessons for Scotland in the new provisions.
With regard to interviewing techniques and guidance, we are drawing up codes of practice which will take account of all relevant experience. I will ensure that copies of those codes of practice are sent to the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Gentleman also asked about research, and that is one thing that we have plenty of in the Home Office. Yes, there will certainly be a full programme of research and monitoring. I do not have statistics about the numbers of courts equipped with video equipment, which was the last issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, but I will write to him with the statistics. I have seen some of the experiments being carried out, and I am sure that the police or others in the Metropolitan area would make it possible for the hon. Gentleman to visit them. I am sure that he would see much of interest to him.
In reply to the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), that will be the last time that I drag her back into the Chamber to receive a complaint. She asked me to make three U-turns and stirred up a debate when there was not meant to be one; it was not part of my game plan, and I had intended to make a quick compliment and get on with the next group of amendments.
The Home Office will make available to Mrs. Plotnikoff any details that we have . We are aware of her research and welcome it, and we shall do all that we can to help her in her work by the provision of data.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 47

ATTENDANCE AT COURT OF PARENT OR GUARDIAN

Lords amendment: No. 74 in page 33, line 12, at end insert—
(3) For the purpose of facilitating the attendance in court of parents or guardians, the youth court in each area shall hold at least one sitting fortnightly outside the times at which the court normally sits if in the opinion of the court this is justified by the number of cases where to require a parent or

guardian to attend court at the times at which the court normally sits would jeopardise the employment of the parent or guardian or would be undesirable for any other reason.

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following: Lords amendment No. 75.
Lords amendment No. 76, in clause 49, page 34, line 16, leave out from "years" to end of line 18 and insert—

"(a) to exercise those powers if it is satisfied, having regard to the circumstances of the case, that their exercise would be desirable in the interests of preventing the commission by him of further offences; and
(b) where it does not exercise them, to state in open court that it is not satisfied as mentioned in paragraph (a) above and why it is not so satisfied."

The following amendments to Lords amendment No. 76: leave out '(a)'.
(b), leave out from `offences' to end of line 8.
Lords amendments Nos. 77 and 151.

Mr. Patten: I shall also speak to amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and 151 which refer to the provisions for binding over the parents of young offenders. I shall then deal in the second part of my speech with an issue that I know concerns the official Opposition. That may be convenient for the Opposition's spokesman.
As the House will know, we firmly believe that the binding over of parents of juvenile offenders can play an important role in helping to prevent further offending by young people. We wish the courts to make much more and better use of this power. That policy was set out clearly in the White Paper "Crime, Justice and Protecting the Public", and that is what the provisions of clause 49 are intended to achieve.
Where the offender is 16 or 17, we think that the courts should have the power to bind over the parents and should have the full discretion to use that power as and when they think it appropriate to do so. Clause 49 already achieves that. However, where the young person is under the age of 16, we think that the courts should be under a duty to consider the question of binding over the parents of a juvenile offender in every case. We also think it right that such powers should be used wherever the court considers it helpful in preventing reoffending by the young person. Amendment No. 76 would achieve that.
Where the juvenile is under the age of 16, the court will be required to do three things. It will be required to consider exercising the bind-over power in every case. It will be required to exercise the powers if, having regard to the circumstances of the case, it is satisfied that their exercise would be desirable in the interests of preventing the commission of further offences by the young person. Where the court does not exercise the powers, it will be required to state in open court why it has chosen not to do so.
The reference to the use of the power to bind over parents to help to prevent reoffending by the young person is especially valuable. It directs the court's attention very clearly to the positive purpose and benefits of binding over. It also makes it clear that there is no compulsion to bind over a parent when it is clear that the parent is not in a position to exercise the control that would prevent further offending.
It may be convenient if I now speak to Opposition amendments (a) and (b) to amendment No. 76. One of the main points of clause 49 is that a court will always have to consider whether to bind over the parent or guardian of a young offender aged under 16. Either it exercises its power to bind over or it gives its reasons for not doing so. That is the theory and the practice that we want to see. The Opposition's amendments would remove the second half of that provision. We would effectively be returning to the law as it stands and we do not want to do that. The Government believe that the magistrates' existing discretion to bind over parents or guardians is not used as often as it might be, and if amendments (a) and (b) were accepted, there would be no additional obligation on magistrates even to consider whether they should exercise their powers to bind over.
I turn now to amendment No. 77. Clause 49 allows the courts to bind over parents for up to three years. During such a period, family circumstances may change. For example, it is possible that a child whose parents are bound over when he or she is 14 or 15 and still at school, may leave school, get married and leave home before the hind-over period of this length has ended. To allow for such changes in circumstances, amendment No. 77 provides the courts with a power to revoke or vary an order binding over a parent if it would be in the interests of justice to do so.

Mr. Maclennan: I want to ask the Minister for his view on amendment No. 74 which is grouped with this amendment, but which he has not dealt with. It would be of interest to know the Government's view.

Mr. Patten: I shall do my best.
In the interests of justice, the parent or guardian must make an application to the court, and the court must be satisfied that there is a relevant change of circumstance.
Amendment No. 75 is a technical amendment. As the Bill is drafted, it is the court that convicts the young offender which would be required to consider the binding over of parents. However, the convicting court may not be the court that sentences the young offender.
In amendments Nos. 75 to 77 and No. 151, we have made some sensible improvements to the Bill. That brings me to the end of the first half of what I said I would deal with. I now deal with the second part—amendment No. 74, which concerns the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan). I cannot, under any circumstances, commend it to the House.
Amendment No. 74 is designed to make it easier for parents to attend court when their child appears as a defendant, by requiring the courts to inquire into possible difficulties that parents in employment might experience in attending court during normal working hours and, if necessary, to hold at least one sitting a fortnight outside normal hours to accommodate them. That alone would cost between £7 million and £10 million.
I see no advantage in compelling a court, before setting a date, to seek out the defendant's parents and to see whether, in the court's view, their employment might be jeopardised by coming to court during normal hours. A parent reluctant to attend might seize the opportunity to claim that his job would be in danger, or might give some other fallacious reason, if he had to be absent for even part of a day. The court would then have to confirm with the parent's employer that that was the case, with all the

attendant costs and all the delays in the criminal justice system which would flow from that. As we all know, one of the best things to do with juveniles is to get them brought before the court as quickly as possible and dealt with as quickly as possible so that they learn the lesson before they have forgotten it.
It should also not be forgotten that many of those in employment are engaged in shift work or work at weekends. Such work patterns seem to provide considerable flexibility for parents. Not only parents, but victims must be taken into account. The House of Lords did not mention victims and the inconvenience caused to victims who have to appear as witnesses and who may have to come out after dark in the evening. Why should victims have to come out in the evening, for example, and make an attendance at court as witnesses at great inconvenience to themselves?

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: I really cannot—

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman must restrain himself.
We need to take into account the perfectly proper considerations of all court users. We must take into account not only the accused and the accused's parents, but witnesses and victims. In taking a balanced view of amendment No. 74, we taken into account the convenience not only of parents, but of all court users. Does the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) want me to give way? I did not think that he did—

Mr. Sheerman: I had resigned myself to coming back to the subject of victims in my remarks in response. The Minister knows—and I do not know how he did not blush when he made the point about victims—that we tried to put the whole role of victims in the court system high on the agenda. The Minister knows that he and his Government would not allow victims to be discussed when the Bill was in Committee.

Mr. Patten: If the Opposition wished to deal with the serious problems facing witnesses in court, and the fact that the elderly, the disabled and other victims might have to turn out at night to attend court sessions, they would have taken them into account in tabling their amendments, and would not have tabled them in their present form. I cannot recommend amendment No. 74 to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: I will start with the "Home and Away" part of the Minister's remarks, rather than with the "Neighbours" bit of his speech—[Laughter.] My hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (M r. Randall) said that the first half was "Neighbours" and the second half was "Home and Away", and that they were as bad as each other. It was a bit dismal to listen to the Minister's rather negative response.
In Committee, the Minister opposed the ideas in the amendment. He has had to change his mind, because he has been defeated in the Lords and he has to make some concessions. However, he does not have the good grace lo say that he was wrong in Committee, that he has learnt his lessons and that he is trying to improve. Instead, he threw in the gratuitous insult about victims, although we desperately tried to get victims on the agenda of the Bill


and were prevented from doing so by the long title of the Bill. Every time we sought to amend the Bill, we were knocked back because the amendments were out of order.
Like the Minister, I will start by discussing amendment (a) to Lords amendment No. 76. It would remove from the Bill the requirement for courts to give reasons if they do not bind over the parents of juvenile offenders. In its original form, the Bill provided that, when a juvenile was convicted of an offence, the court must bind over the parents to take proper care of him or her and to exercise proper control, unless it considered that that was unreasonable.
On Report in the Lords, the Government removed the statutory presumption in favour of binding over parents in response to amendments moved by peers in the all-party penal affairs group. We are always grateful for small mercies, and that was a positive change from what the Minister said in Committee. We had argued from the beginning in Committee that the bind-over proposals were wrong and were opposed by all who worked in the system as doctrinaire nonsense which would create far more problems than it would solve.
The Minister has staked his reputation on legislating for happy families. We have told him that one cannot do it, that, if one imposes a £1,000 fine on parents for their children's good behaviour, it will not work, and that it will destroy families rather than unite them. We told him that until we were blue in the face. It was not until those in the other place told him that, that he had to accept that some part of our argument was right.
We stressed that the proposals were likely to increase rather than reduce juvenile crime by placing an additional burden on many families who were already under pressure. Amendment No. 74 was a welcome modification of a quite unworkable proposal. Through amendment (a), we are saying that the new version of the clause would require courts to give reasons if they did not bind over parents. Although an improvement on the original proposals, that will still—[Interruption.] We had strictures from the right hon. Member for Mitcham and Mordern (Mrs. Rumbold), the Minister of State, earlier about my not concentrating fully on her remarks. I was not, because I was trying to follow how we had lost a couple of clauses. I hope that the Minister has not lost a couple.
The power for the courts to give reasons if they do not bind over parents is still not good enough. Although an improvement on the original proposal, it will still place inappropriate pressure on courts to use a measure that, in the vast majority in cases, would do more harm than good. It is misguided to place pressure on the courts to use that power in cases in which they do not currently regard as sensible to do so.
Binding over parents and requiring them to forfeit money if the child reoffends is likely to increase parents' resentment and to aggravate further relationships between them and their children, putting the children more at risk than ever. It will increase the pressures on many families who are already struggling to survive against great odds. In some cases, it will accelerate the trend for parents to throw their children out of the house to join the growing ranks of the young homeless. We have talked about the homeless, and about the Vagrancy Act 1824 and the

missed opportunity to get rid of it. The problems that I have described would have been more serious if the Bill had not been amended by the Lords.
We believe that a further refinement would be for the Minister at last to say that the provision was a bit of an ideological wheeze which he thought might go down well at the Conservative party conference and might impress some Back-Bench Members. He should say that, because of the implacable opposition of the Magistrates Association, the Justices Clerks Association and everyone who does the job in juvenile justice, he has taken some notice. He should go the full way and forget the proposal.
The "Neighbours" part of my speech concerns amendment No. 74, which is better than the first part—which is hard to believe. I will not render this bit with an Australian twang. The amendment requires youth courts to hold at least one sitting a fortnight in the evening or at weekends when that is justified—I hope that the Minister will listen—by the number of cases that would be dealt with more appropriately at such a time. The amendment was moved not by some radical firebrand, but by Baroness Faithfull, a constituent of the Minister. I know that he has great respect for that lady. She moved the amendment on behalf of the all-party penal affairs group and it was carried on Third Reading by 79 votes to 75, against the Government's wishes.
One result of the amendment will be to reduce the risk that requiring parents to attend court with their children would jeopardise their employment. Perhaps if one is of the aristocratic persuasion in a marginal Oxford constituency, one may feel that it is irrelevant to consider how the courts cater for people. The Opposition have consistently said that the real change that needs to be made to the courts system is that the system should be more consumer-oriented. The people who use the courts should find friendly courts and places which are not aloof. The courts should be people's courts where people can find justice. They should be run for the people and not for the barristers, lawyers and others who are there to serve. It is about time that we had a legal system based on the principle of serving people who use them rather than those who work in the courts.
8.30 pm
The Minister of State may be contemptuous of the idea that ordinary working people and single-parent families must attend court. Perhaps the Minister of State should be reminded of the number of homeless people in the marginal Oxford constituency that he represents. He would be surprised at the number. There are many in my much less marginal constituency of Huddersfield. Those families need to be able to attend courts at more convenient times than at present.
What is wrong with weekend or evening courts? The Minister plucks figures out of the air. He seems capable of adding up only in tens. His proposals seem to cost £10 million, £100 million or £1,000 million.

Mr. John Patten: I said £7 million.

Mr. Sheerman: Well, £7 million to £10 million. The proposal has not been costed properly. We should at least be able to experiment in the areas where there is greatest need. We might then make the courts people's courts instead of lawyers' courts. The Opposition believe that justice and access to justice is what this Bill could have been about. Unfortunately, that has not been the case. The


one small measure that Baroness Faithfull managed to propose in the other place could be a sign that the Government are at least prepared to accept that change.
I am sorry that the Minister has been contemptuous of this, sensible amendment which would have opened up the courts and made them more amenable to those who have jobs in which they lose pay if they do not turn up. The proposal would have made matters more convenient for single parent families and those who suffer from the kind of discrimination that I have described at work. If those people do not turn up at work, they are not paid and the family is not fed or shod.

Mr. Maclennan: I was more surprised by the Minister's reasons for opposing amendment No. 74 than by the fact that he opposed it. There is no requirement to hold courts at the convenience of the parents or guardians of young people brought before the court. There is a requirement to hold such courts only when that is justified. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary because, as I understand it, it is open to the courts to hold evening sittings if they so choose at the moment.
As it is desirable that the courts should hold evening sittings if that is in the interests of justice including the interests of the witnesses, the amendment must be unnecessary. I understand that courts increasingly choose to sit in the evenings. That makes a great deal of sense. It saves time and it expedites hearings. It also meets the convenience of many people who are not necessarily professionally engaged in court, and it may even be for the convenience of those who are so engaged, who may prefer to handle a long list of cases rather than a short list and have to return on another occasion.
The Minister's over-the-top opposition to the amendment was uncharacteristically unsympathetic. I hope that he does not disapprove of the holding of evening courts. I was surprised by his suggestion that the costs would increase. I was also surprised that he was able to cost matters in that way. It must be difficult to judge how often courts would choose to sit in the evenings. I would like to know the Minister's assumptions and how he made his calculation of £7 million to £10 million of additional expenditure. If courts could dispose of matters which they would otherwise have to bring back on another day, that would save money. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that the Government do not oppose evening courts.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 202, Noes 132.

Division No. 194]
[8.36 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Boscawen, Hon Robert


Aitken, Jonathan
Boswell, Tim


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Peter


Amess, David
Bottomley, Mrs Virginia


Amos, Alan
Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)


Arbuthnot, James
Bowis, John


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Brandon-Bravo, Martin


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Aspinwall, Jack
Bright, Graham


Atkins, Robert
Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Buck, Sir Antony


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Budgen, Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Burns, Simon


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Butler, Chris


Benyon, W.
Carlisle, John, (Luton N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Carrington, Matthew


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Carttiss, Michael


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Channon, Rt Hon Paul





Chapman, Sydney
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Chope, Christopher
Latham, Michael


Churchill, Mr
Lawrence, Ivan


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark


Conway, Derek
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Lightbown, David


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Cran, James
Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard


Curry, David
McCrindle, Sir Robert


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Davis, David (Boothferry)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Day, Stephen
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Devlin, Tim
Maclean, David


Dicks, Terry
McLoughlin, Patrick


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Dover, Den
Madel, David


Dunn, Bob
Malins, Humfrey


Durant, Sir Anthony
Marland, Paul


Dykes, Hugh
Marlow, Tony


Eggar, Tim
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Emery, Sir Peter
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Evennett, David
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Fallon, Michael
Moate, Roger


Favell, Tony
Monro, Sir Hector


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Fishburn, John Dudley
Moss, Malcolm


Fookes, Dame Janet
Mudd, David


Forman, Nigel
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Nicholls, Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus
Norris, Steve


Franks, Cecil
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Freeman, Roger
Patnick, Irvine


French, Douglas
Patten, Rt Hon John


Fry, Peter
Pawsey, James


Gale, Roger
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Gardiner, Sir George
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Gill, Christopher
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Goodlad, Alastair
Shaw, David (Dover)


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Shelton, Sir William


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Gregory, Conal
Shersby, Michael


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Grist, Ian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Ground, Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Grylls, Michael
Speller, Tony


Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn
Stanbrook, Ivor


Hague, William
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Stern, Michael


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Stevens, Lewis


Hanley, Jeremy
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Stokes, Sir John


Harris, David
Sumberg, David


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Summerson, Hugo


Hayward, Robert
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Hill, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Hind, Kenneth
Thornton, Malcolm


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Thurnham, Peter


Hordern, Sir Peter
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Trippier, David


Irvine, Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Irving, Sir Charles
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Jack, Michael
Viggers, Peter


Janman, Tim
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Waller, Gary


Key, Robert
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Kilfedder, James
Watts, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Wheeler, Sir John


Kirkhope, Timothy
Whitney, Ray


Knapman, Roger
Widdecombe, Ann


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wilshire, David


Knox, David
Winterton, Mrs Ann






Wolfson, Mark



Wood, Timothy
Tellers for the Ayes:


Woodcock, Dr. Mike
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Yeo, Tim
Mr. Nicholas Baker.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Leighton, Ron


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Lestor, Joan (Eccles)


Allen, Graham
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Anderson, Donald
Loyden, Eddie


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Beckett, Margaret
McKelvey, William


Bell, Stuart
McLeish, Henry


Bellotti, David
Maclennan, Robert


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
McMaster, Gordon


Bermingham, Gerald
Madden, Max


Blunkett, David
Marek, Dr John


Boyes, Roland
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Callaghan, Jim
Martlew, Eric


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Maxton, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Meacher, Michael


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Meale, Alan


Carr, Michael
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Morgan, Rhodri


Cohen, Harry
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Corbett, Robin
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Mullin, Chris


Cox, Tom
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Crowther, Stan
O'Brien, William


Cryer, Bob
Patchett, Terry


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Pike, Peter L.


Dalyell, Tam
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Darling, Alistair
Prescott, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Primarolo, Dawn


Dewar, Donald
Quin, Ms Joyce


Dixon, Don
Randall, Stuart


Duffy, Sir A. E. P.
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Richardson, Jo


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Robinson, Geoffrey


Eadie, Alexander
Rogers, Allan


Eastham, Ken
Rooker, Jeff


Edwards, Huw
Rowlands, Ted


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Sedgemore, Brian


Fearn, Ronald
Sheerman, Barry


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Fisher, Mark
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Flynn, Paul
Short, Clare


Foster, Derek
Skinner, Dennis


Fraser, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Fyfe, Maria
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Galbraith, Sam
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Galloway, George
Snape, Peter


Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Golding, Mrs Llin
Strang, Gavin


Gordon, Mildred
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Graham, Thomas
Wallace, James


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Warded, Gareth (Gower)


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Wigley, Dafydd


Hood, Jimmy
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Howells, Geraint
Winnick, David


Hoyle, Doug
Worthington, Tony


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)



Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Tellers for the Noes:


Kirkwood, Archy
Mr. Frank Haynes and


Leadbitter, Ted
Mr. Jack Thompson.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 74 disagreed to.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Do I understand that the hon. Member is not now pressing his amendments (a) and (b) to Lords amendment No. 76?

Mr. Randall: Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 78, after clause 49, insert the following new clause—Detention etc. pending trial—
In section 38 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (duties of custody officer after charge), for subsections (6) and (6A) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(6) Where a custody officer authorises an arrested juvenile to be kept in police detention under subsection (1) above, the custody officer shall, unless he certifies—

(a) that, by reason of such circumstances as are specified in the certificate, it is impracticable for him to do so; or
(b) in the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, that no secure accommodation is available and that keeping him in other local authority accommodation would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him,

secure that the arrested juvenile is moved to local authority accommodation.
(6A) In this section—

'local authority accommodation' means accommodation provided by or on behalf of a local authority (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989);
'secure accommodation' means accommodation provided for the purpose of restricting liberty;
'sexual offence' and 'violent offence' have the same meanings as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991;

and any reference, in relation to an arrested juvenile charged with a violent or sexual offence, to protecting the public from serious harm from him shall be construed as a reference to protecting members of the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, occasioned by further such offences committed by him." ")

Read a Second time.

Mr. Randall: I beg to move, amendment (a) to the Lords amendment, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
'(b) in the case of an arrested juvenile who has attained the age of 15 years, that keeping him in such accommodation with such supervision as the local authority proposes to make available would not be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him before he is brought before the magistrates' court to which he is charged to appear.'.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take the following amendments to the proposed amendment: (b), in line 24, leave out
'secure accommodation means accommodation provided for the purpose of securing liberty'.

(c), in line 26, leave out "'sexual offence" and "violent offence" have the same meaning as in Part I of the Criminal Justice Act 1991'.
(d), in line 29, leave out

'charged with a violent or sexual offence'.


Lords amendments Nos. 79 and 80,
Lords amendment No. 81, a new clause—Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodationand amendment (a) to the Lords amendment.
Lords amendments Nos. 97, 119 to 121, 130 to 132, 144, 152 and 163.

Mr. Randall: Amendment No. 78 was a response by the Government to concerns expressed in another place by Lord Elton and opposition to the continued detention of juveniles in police custody in circumstances in which local authorities have offered to accommodate them until their court appearance. The purpose of the Government's amendment is to lay down restrictive criteria that will help to meet those concerns. We welcome the proposal, and our amendment is intended to improve the measure by clarifying some of the wording.
We are concerned that the Government's intentions could be thwarted unless the wording is modified. There are two problems, the first of which lies in the wording of paragraph (b) of Lords amendment No. 78, where there is a risk that the reference to "secure accommodation" could send the wrong message to police custody officers by suggesting to them that, where no secure accommodation is available, they are almost automatically entitled to regard other sorts of accommodation as inadequate to protect the public. Local authorities have effective ways, other than secure accommodation, of ensuring security and the surveillance of arrested juveniles, whom they usually have to hold for no more than one night before producing them at the next available court.
The reference to "secure accommodation" reinforces the tendency for police custody officers to regard other sorts of accommodation as inadequate and will produce wide inequalities between different districts. Children in regions without immediate access to secure accommodation will be at risk of being held in police cells. Moreover, local authorities that take their duty to provide accommodation for detained juveniles seriously, and have access to secure accommodation, will have to choose whether to earmark secure accommodation beds exclusively for that purpose. Secure accommodation is an expensive and valuable resource, but the proposals to end remands in custody will place extra demands on it. To leave paragraph (b) as it stands will place an irrational demand on this limited facility.
The second problem lies in the wording of paragraph (b), which refers to the notion of protecting the public from serious harm, but defines "serious harm" only in terms of violent and sexual offences. The custody officer is given no guidance on how to interpret "serious harm" in relation to other offences. Our proposals will ensure that the term "serious harm" means protecting the public from death or serious personal injury, whether physical or psychological, whatever the offence for which the juvenile is arrested. That will ensure consistency between the courts. I hope that the Government will accept our proposals in the constructive manner in which they have been presented and are intended.
Lords amendments Nos. 79 to 81 set out stricter criteria for the remand of juveniles in custody in the short term and provide for the ending of such remands in the long term. The important short-term changes are that such remands will he restricted to cases where they are needed to protect the public from serious harm from the defendant, and that no juvenile can be remanded in

custody unless he or she has been offered legal representation. That is unquestionably a welcome and substantial step in the right direction.
However, we believe that the real need is to end completely the remanding of juveniles to adult prisons and remand centres, and we have debated that issue at considerable length. Where it is necessary to remand a juvenile, it should be to a secure place in a community home staffed by those specialising in working with children, not to a prison department establishment. While the Government have committed themselves to ending juvenile remands in custody eventually, they have not committed themselves to a timetable for doing so. They have said that they will end such remands where sufficient local secure accommodation is available, but they have not announced a specific timetable.
In February, the Home Office issued a consultation paper entitled "The Remand of Alleged Juvenile Offenders". The Home Office proposed to restrict custodial remands in the short term on the lines of the Bill's provisions—to establish between 30 and 35 more secure beds for juveniles in local authority homes and to review the position, but not necessarily to end juvenile remands in custody, over the next four years.
There has been mounting concern at the remand of juveniles in custody, and many cases can be quoted. The Minister knows only too well that there were some frightening problems relating to young remand prisoners in Hull prison. We should all compliment the staff there, who have to cope in such difficult circumstances. The conditions in which some young people, but not as many as before, are now held are much worse than those for sentenced young offenders in young offender institutions —indeed, they are the worst conditions in the whole penal system. The young people are often confined for most. of the day in overcrowded, insanitary cells. Boys of 15 and 16 are held with older teenagers up to the age of 21, many of whom are much tougher and more experienced offenders. That is a recipe for criminal contamination, bullying and suicide attempts.
In the 12 months to end of June 1990, 1,300 boys aged 15 and 16 were remanded to prisons and remand centres. However, the number of juveniles on remand in penal establishments at any one time is much smaller. On 30 April 1990, there were 65 untried and 19 convicted, unsentenced boys under the age of 17 in prisons and remand centres. The Opposition believe that, with such numbers, it should be possible to plan a timetable strategy.
In their consultation paper, the Government estimated that the necessary secure accommodation should be ready in four years' time. However, four years is a disturbingly long time in view of the gravity of the problem. Even more disturbing is the lack of a firm commitment to end the custodial remand of juveniles at that date. Although, ideally, we should like to see a more rapid timetable for ending that practice, the amendment is limited to providing that it should be discontinued at the time when the Government have established that the necessary secure accommodation is in place.
The amendments are positive and constructive and tackle a terrible problem for which the Government have failed to come up with a timetable. I hope that the House will support them.

9 pm

Mr. John Patten: Amendment (a), which is the first of the two amendments to Lords amendment No. 78, would remove the reference to secure accommodation from new subsection 6(b) and insert a reference to supervision. Having listened carefully to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West (Mr. Randall), I argue that the nature of the accommodation alone should not determine whether the police can safely transfer 15 and 16-year-olds to the local authority, but that the quality of the supervision should also be considered. I happen to agree that quality is important and Lords amendment No. 78 allows the quality of supervision to be taken into account. It does not compel the police to hold on to 15 and 16-year-olds if they are satisfied with local authority arrangements.
However, I cannot commend the Opposition amendments to the House because, alas, they have an undesirable side effect. They would widen the discretion of the police to hold young people in police cells. I am sure that that is not what the hon. Gentleman wants. Lords amendment No. 78 requires the police to make the transfer if secure accommodation is available. The Opposition's amendments as drafted would remove that requirement. I know the drafting style of the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West and I am sure that he did not draft the amendments. Perhaps they were drafted by the learned counsel to whom the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman) referred earlier. If they were drafted at great cost to the Labour party by some outside source, I hope that it was done on a no foal, no fee basis because it is extremely badly drafted and produces the opposite to what the Opposition set out to achieve. It would allow the police to hold a 15 or 16-year-old, even if secure accommodation were available, if the police certified that that accommodation offered inadequate protection to the public. That cannot be right and I am sure that it is not what the Opposition intend.
The remaining Opposition amendments to Lords Amendment No. 78 deserve serious consideration but would further restrict police power to hold an arrested juvenile aged 15 or 16. Provided that no local authority secure accommodation is available, Lords amendment No. 78 allows the police to hold 15 and 16-year-olds where there is a risk of serious harm to the public. It does not matter whether that serious harm would be caused by a sexual or violent offence or in some other way. For example, it may be another in a series of bad domestic burglaries of the homes of elderly people after dark. Unfortunately, the Opposition's amendment would limit the concept of serious harm to death or serious personal injury. That simply does not recognise the reality of the problem.
The public have a right to expect protection and consideration for their fear of further attack or burglary by 15 or 16-year-olds. We should not underestimate the harm that a serious domestic burglary can cause. It is not easy to judge serious harm but I believe that the police will be called upon to make difficult decisions, often on the basis of limited information. A balance must be struck between the needs of the young person and those of the public, but the police must have the discretion to strike that balance, at least overnight, and the Opposition's amendments

would deprive them of that. Moreover, they could expose both the young man—it normally is a young man rather than a young woman—to further harm.
As for Lords amendment No. 81, on which the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West spoke towards the end of his speech, there is not a scintilla of difference between us on the end that we both want to achieve—the ending of remanding young people in prison. The hon. Gentleman was right to pay tribute to staff at Hull prison, who have done an extremely good job. However, the amendments to Lords amendment No. 81 would set a firm date of four years after the enactment of the Bill for prison remands to be ended. The Government are committed to ending such remands as quickly as possible and I happen to think that that deadline will be met but—it is a big but —let us suppose that the deadline cannot be met in some part of the country for, say, a combination of planning reasons. Local protest groups, local authorities not granting planning permission or appeals to the Department of the Environment could all prevent that deadline from being met. If the deadline of four years were not met in such areas, dangerous young people would remain on the streets. I am afraid to say that, while I agree with the sentiment of what the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, West said, I cannot agree with the actuality of the amendment, nor can I commend it to the House, and I hope that hon. Members will resist it.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 78 agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendment agreed to. [Special Entry].

Lords amendment: No. 81, to insert the following new clause—

Transitory provisions pending provision of secure accommodation

(".—(1) In relation to any time before such day as the Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument appoint, section 23 of the 1969 Act as substituted by section (Remands and committals to local authority accommodation)(1) above shall have effect with the following modifications.
(2) In subsection (1), immediately before the words "the remand" there shall be inserted the words "then, unless he is declared by the court, after consultation with a probation officer or a social worker of a local authority social services department, to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies".
(3) For subsections (4) and (5) there shall be substituted the following subsections—

"(4) Where a court declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) below applies, it shall remand him—

(a) to a remand centre, if it has been notified that such a centre is available for the reception from the court of such persons; and
(b) to a prison, if it has not been so notified.

(4A) A court shall not declare a person who is not legally represented in the court to be a person to whom subsection (5) below applies unless—

(a) he applied for legal aid and the application was refused on the ground that it did not appear his means were such that he required assistance; or
(b) having been informed of his right to apply for legal aid and had the opportunity to do so, he refused or failed to apply.

(5) This subsection applies to a young person who is male and has attained the age of fifteen, but only if—

(a) he is charged with or has been convicted of a violent or sexual offence, or an offence


punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for a term of fourteen years or more; or
(b) he has a recent history of absconding while remanded to local authority accommodation, and is charged with or has been convicted of an imprisonable offence alleged or found to have been committed while he was so remanded,

and (in either case) the court is of opinion that only remanding him to a remand centre or prison would be adequate to protect the public from serious harm from him."

(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) for the words "imposes a security requirement in respect of a young person" there shall be substituted the words "declares a person to be one to whom subsection (5) above applies"; and
(b) for the words "subsection (5) above" there shall be substituted the words "that subsection".

(5) In subsections (7) and (9), the words "without imposing a security requirement" shall be omitted.
(6) After subsection (9) there shall be inserted the following subsection—

"(9A) Where a person is remanded to local authority accommodation, a relevant court may, on the application of the designated authority, declare him to be a person to whom subsection (5) above applies; and on its doing so, he shall cease to be remanded to local authority accommodation and subsection (4) above shall apply."

(7) In subsection (12), the definition of "secure accommodation" shall be omitted.")

Amendment proposed: (a), in subsection (1), after `appoint', insert
`which day shall be no later than the end of the period of four years beginning with the day on which this Act is passed'. —[Mr. Randall.]

Question put, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided Ayes 127, Noes 202.

Division No. 195]
[9.6 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley, N.)
Duffy, Sir A. E. P.


Allen, Graham
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Eastham, Ken


Beckett, Margaret
Edwards, Huw


Bell, Stuart
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bellotti. David
Fearn, Ronald


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bermingham, Gerald
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Derek


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foulkes, George


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Callaghan, Jim
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Galloway, George


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Carr, Michael
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cohen, Harry
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Corbett, Robin
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Cox, Tom
Howells, Geraint


Crowther, Stan
Hoyle, Doug


Cryer, Bob
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, leuan (Ynys Mön)


Darling, Alistair
Kirkwood, Archy


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l)
Leadbitter, Ted


Dewar, Donald
Leighton, Ron





Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Quin, Ms Joyce


Loyden, Eddie
Randall, Stuart


McAvoy, Thomas
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Richardson, Jo


McKelvey, William
Robinson, Geoffrey


McLeish, Henry
Rogers, Allan


Maclennan, Robert
Rooker, Jeff


McMaster, Gordon
Rowlands, Ted


Madden, Max
Sedgemore, Brian


Marek, Dr John
Sheerman, Barry


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Short, Clare


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Skinner, Dennis


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Martlew, Eric
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Maxton, John
Snape, Peter


Meacher, Michael
Spearing, Nigel


Meale, Alan
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Strang, Gavin


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Wallace, James


Morgan, Rhodri
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Wigley, Dafydd


Mullin, Chris
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Winnick, David


O'Brien, William
Worthington, Tony


Patchett, Terry
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Pike, Peter L.



Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Prescott, John
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Primarolo, Dawn
Mr. Frank Haynes.


NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Curry, David


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amess, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amos, Alan
Day, Stephen


Arbuthnot, James
Devlin, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Dicks, Terry


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eggar, Tim


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Batiste, Spencer
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Evennett, David


Benyon, W.
Fallon, Michael


Bevan, David Gilroy
Favell, Tony


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fishburn, John Dudley


Boswell, Tim
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bottomley, Peter
Forman, Nige!


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Bowis, John
Freeman, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
French, Douglas


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Gardiner, Sir George


Buck, Sir Antony
Gill, Christopher


Budgen, Nicholas
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Burns, Simon
Goodlad, Alastair


Burt, Alistair
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Butler, Chris
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Greenway, Harry (Eating N)


Carrington, Matthew
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Carttiss, Michael
Gregory, Conal


Cash, William
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Grist, Ian


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Ground, Patrick


Chapman, Sydney
Grylls, Michael


Chope, Christopher
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Churchill, Mr
Hague, William


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie


Conway, Derek
Hampson, Dr Keith


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Hanley, Jeremy


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Cran, James
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)






Harris, David
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Hawkins, Christopher
Patnick, Irvine


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hayward, Robert
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Sackville, Hon Tom


Hill, James
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Hind, Kenneth
Shaw, David (Dover)


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Shelton, Sir William


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


Irvine, Michael
Shersby, Michael


Irving, Sir Charles
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Jack, Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Janman, Tim
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Speller, Tony


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Stanbrook, Ivor


Key, Robert
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Kilfedder, James
Stern, Michael


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Stevens, Lewis


Kirkhope, Timothy
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Knapman, Roger
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Stokes, Sir John


Knox, David
Sumberg, David


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Summerson, Hugo


Latham, Michael
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Lawrence, Ivan
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Lightbown, David
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Thornton, Malcolm


Luce, Rt Hon Sir Richard
Thurnham, Peter


McCrindle, Sir Robert
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Twinn, Dr Ian


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Viggers, Peter


Maclean, David
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


McLoughlin, Patrick
Waller, Gary


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Madel, David
Watts, John


Malins, Humfrey
Wells, Bowen


Marland, Paul
Wheeler, Sir John


Marlow, Tony
Whitney, Ray


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Widdecombe, Ann


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Wilshire, David


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Moate, Roger
Wolfson, Mark


Monro, Sir Hector
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Yeo, Tim


Moss, Malcolm



Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Tellers for the Noes:


Nicholls, Patrick
Mr. Neil Hamilton and


Norris, Steve
Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment No. 81 agreed to.

After clause 50

Lords amendment: No. 82, to insert the following new clause—Custodial sentences under 1933 Act—
(". Section 53(2) of the 1933 Act (punishment of certain grave crimes) shall have effect, in relation to a person who has attained the age of 16, as if the reference to any offence punishable in the case of an adult with imprisonment for 14 years or more, not being an offence the sentence for which is fixed by law, included a reference to an offence under section 14 of the Sexual Offences Act 1956 (indecent assault on a woman).")

Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall also discuss Lords amendments Nos. 83 and 155.

Mr. Patten: The provisions of the Bill bring 17-year-olds within the youth court
system for sentencing purposes and treat 16 and 17-year-olds as a distinct group within that system. The amendments make further useful minor provisions in regard to the sentencing of 16 and 17-year-old offenders, and I know that they will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Randall: As we see it, amendment No. 82 empowers the court to pass custodial sentences longer than the normal 12-month maximum on juveniles convicted of indecent assault. At present, section 53 of the Children and Young Persons Act 1933, under which longer sentences can be passed, is restricted to offences which carry a maximum penalty of 14 years imprisonment or more in the case of an adult. Indecent assault has a maximum penalty of 10 years' imprisonment, so it currently falls outside the scope of section 53. As some of the most extreme indecent assaults can be as bad as rape, it is difficult to quarrel with the amendment, and the Opposition are pleased to support it.

Mr. Patten: I greatly welcome the support that the hon. Gentleman has given. I am grateful to the official Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 83 agreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 84, after clause 58 insert the following new clause—Default power where probation committee fails to discharge statutory duty—

".—(1) The Secretary of State may make an order under this section if he is of the opinion that, without reasonable excuse, a probation committee—

(a) is failing properly to discharge any duty imposed on it by or under any enactment; or
(b) has so failed and is likely to do so again.

(2) An order under this section shall—

(a) state that the Secretary of State is of the said opinion; and
(b) make such provision as he considers requisite for the purpose of securing that the duty is properly discharged by the committee.

(3) Where an order is made under this section, it shall be the duty of the committee to comply with the provision made by the order."

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 85, 86, 98 and 99.

Mr. Patten: It is widely recognised that the provisions in the Bill to deal with more offenders in the community make it more important than ever to have a probation service that is efficient, effective and accountable to the Secretary of State. Lords amendment No. 84 and the associated amendments ensure that the line of accountability is clear to my right hon. Friend who is, in the end, responsible for the public expenditure involved. The related amendments also tidy up some areas of concern about the relationship between the probation committees and local authorities on payment and manpower.

Mr. Randall: I want to speak to Lords amendment No. 98 and the way in which we arrive at the manning figures for the probation service. We believe that the wording of the amendment is important. We have already expressed deep concern that the probation committees should be free


to decide how many probation officers an area needs. If local authorities were involved in the decision that could cause unworkable tension between the parties.
Lords amendment No. 98 makes it clear that it is not necessary for the probation committee and the local authority to reach agreement on the number of probation officers as a matter of routine. Although that does not meet all our concerns we believe that that amendment is a step in the right direction and we therefore support it.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I should just like to say how much I support the amendment. My right hon. Friend will be aware that a constituent of mine, Mr. George Arkless, has had considerable difficulty with the north-east London probation service. It seemed to me that there were difficulties in the channel of communication between the probation service and the Home Office. Anything that strengthens those channels of comrnunication must be welcomed.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 64

ARRANGEMENTS FOR THE PROVISION OF PRISONER ESCORTS

Lords amendment: No. 88, in page 43, line 2, leave out ("as respects any area")

Mrs. Rumbold: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider Lords amendments Nos. 89 to 92, 94 to 96, and 122 to 129.

Mrs. Rumbold: Amendment No. 88 and the associated amendments are all concerned with the Bill's provisions on prisoner custody officers. Amendments Nos. 90, 94 to 96 and 122 to 129 make some modest improvements to the provisions of the Bill relating to the certification of prisoner custody officers. They do two things.
First, they enable different grades of certificates to be issued depending on whether the person concerned wishes to be authorised to escort prisoners, to work in a contracted-out prison, or both. However, we believe that it is most likely that many prison custody officers will want to do prisoner escorting only or in a contracted-out prison only. Although many of the requirements and much of the training will be common to the two functions, it does not seem necessary for someone who is going to escort prisoners to receive training which is relevant to work inside a prison only, and vice versa. Secondly, the amendments provide for expiry dates to be set for prisoner custody officer certificates. We think that it would be better if provision were made for the certificates to expire after a certain period. Otherwise, they could remain in force for many years after the holder has ceased to be employed as a prisoner custody officer—perhaps for the rest of his lifetime.
Amendment No. 92 was introduced in response to an undertaking that I made when the clause was considered by the House in Committee. The clause places prisoner custody officers under a duty to attend to the well-being of prisoners under escort. We agree that that duty should include matters such as the explicit obligation to protect

prisoners from public scrutiny and insult and to provide adequate light, ventilation and standards of physical comfort in the vans used to transport them.
We intend to make rules to cover those matters, so as to ensure that prisoner custody officers are under no less an obligation than are prison officers under prison rules with regard to the escort of prisoners.
The amendment is phrased in general terms because matters other than those mentioned may also affect the welfare of prisoners, and they may need to be taken Into account, too.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 79

INFORMATION FOR FINANCIAL AND OTHER PURPOSES

Lords amendment: No. 100, in page 53, line 7, leave out
("avoidance by such persons of discrimination")
and insert
("performance by such persons of their duty to avoid discriminating")

Mr. John Patten: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
When the House considered the Bill on Report the Government introduced an amendment to clause 79, which placed on my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary a duty regularly to publish information to facilitate the avoidance of discrimination on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground by persons engaged in the whole area of the administration of justice. Lords amendment No. 100 builds upon and clarifies 'that provision, and I commend it to the House.

Mr. Sheerman: This is probably the last time that I shall comment on anything in the Bill—I am sure that some Members will be pleased about that.
The amendment would change the wording of clause 79 to establish the principle that those administering criminal justice have a duty to avoid discriminating on the grounds of race, sex or any other improper ground. We pushed hard for that idea in Committee, and once again we see the fruits of our work coming from another place. It is rather odd making a case in Committee in the House of Commons and then seeing the same arguments—although they may be a little more eloquently deployed—used in the House of Lords, where they seem to have some magic ingredient that enables them to be accepted.
The Minister deserves at least some congratulations, although he will not get all of them, because I have some small reservations about the Government's attitude. As a compromise, following pressure from Baroness Flather and other peers in the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group, the Government accepted that the Bill should include a statement of the principle that decisions of the criminal justice system should not discriminate on the ground of race.
It is revealing and important to put it on the record that, on 21 March, during the Committee stage in the House of Lords, Lord Elton—a former Conservative Home Office Minister—said:
I was a reluctant convert to the view that there appears to be an element of discrimination against ethnic minority offenders in our criminal processes. In his reply, I asked my noble Friend to consider what are the social effects of that. The fabric of our society is only sustainable if the mass of society consents to the criteria on which justice is


administered. If a particular discrete, identifiable and self-identifiable sector of that society believes that there is a system of justice which is just for other people but not just for them, whether or not that belief is well founded, the effects upon our society as a whole will be very damaging because those people will see the judicial system not as a means of maintaining law and order but as a means of keeping 'them' down and 'us' up. That is a recipe for internecine warfare and is very dangerous."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 March 1991; Vol. 527, c. 1040–41.]
I welcome that important statement by Lord Elton, and the fact that it was made in the debate on this very amendment. We have made that point consistently throughout our long proceedings on the Bill. We must not only ensure that there is no discrimination in the criminal justice system—and, at the moment, there is evidence to suggest that there is; we must prove to those who feel that there is discrimination that there is not.
9.30 pm
I warmly welcomed the Minister's invitation, following the Report stage of the Bill, to meet him at the Home Office with representatives of the black community, black probation officers, lawyers and so on. We had a good exchange of views. I thank the Minister for that and acknowledge that some progress was made.
Having given my little bit of praise, let me go on to say that, to understand the strength of feeling on the matter among the black community and other members of ethnic minorities, we need first to appreciate the widespread and mounting concern about the disproportionately large number of black people in the prison system. The proportion of the prison population coming from ethnic minorities has risen—from 12·5 per cent. in 1985 to 16 per cent. in 1989. Although ethnic minorities constitute less than 5 per cent. of the general population, the proportion of female prisoners from ethnic minorites is even greater, at 24 per cent. That is a worrying figure.
I see that the Home Secretary is in his place, and I must point out to him that it is not as worrying as the appalling and sad figures that we have received this evening—I believe that they will be published officially in the media tomorrow morning—which show a 17·6 per cent. increase in the crime figures. I say that with great sadness. Those figures must depress all of us in the House who believe that law and order are so important. Perhaps the Government will now accept our invitation to talk jointly about crime prevention measures upon which we can all agree.
There are two reasons why the disproportionately large figures for ethnic minorities cannot simply be attributed to differential crime rates or to the fact that a higher proportion of the black population are in the crime-prone teenage groups. The first is that the Home Office statistics on the ethnic breakdown of the prison population, first compiled in 1985, and published annually since then, show that members of ethnic minorities entering prison have, on average, fewer previous convictions than white prisoners, and that, before conviction, they were less likely to receive bail than comparable white defendants.
That has worrying implications for the way in which the ethnic minority community views the criminal justice system, and there is a measure of justification for its perception, as hon. Members on both sides of the House will agree. The figures suggest that people from ethnic minorities who commit offences are more likely to end up in prison than comparable white offenders. Therefore,

although we welcome the Government's change of heart and mind, the Opposition will take a little of the credit for adding to the creative process to which any sensible Bill gives rise.
The second reason is that, although the findings of research studies conflict to some extent—I have always been honest about that—a disturbing number of studies contain indications that members of ethnic minorities are treated differently from white people at various stages of the criminal justice process. We have argued throughout our proceedings on the Bill that a statutory duty such as that expressed in the amendment is essential. We believe that, in drawing attention in primary legislation to a duty not to discriminate, Parliament would be making an important statement about the significance that it attaches to the principle of non-discrimination. The existence of such a provision is psychologically important.
I do not know whether you, Mr. Speaker, would agree with me—given your considerable knowledge of legislation—but in my view it is not always just the words that matter; sometimes the psychological impact on our citizens is even more important. You probably do agree, Mr. Speaker; you have often said as much as I have passed the Chair.
During the passage of the Bill, the Opposition have consistently argued that such a non-discriminatory duty is important; the Government, however, have been slow to accept its importance, and have continually resisted our amendments. They have now introduced the notion of a duty not to discriminate , but have done so in a rather indirect way, incorporating that duty in a clause that deals with the publication of information. Given the importance of the issue, we feel that it should have featured at the front of the Bill, as a key principle, rather than being buried in a rather obscure clause at the end. The Government have moved forward a little way, but they have done so in a grudging manner that will not impress all who are concerned about racism in the criminal justice system.
Let me end on a positive note. My visit to the Home Office proved valuable: communication was established, and some creative ideas were developed as a basis for future exchanges. We were also given a cup of tea. I promise that in a short time, when I am a Home Office Minister, I shall reciprocate and extend the same co-operation to the Minister—if he survives the contest in Oxford.
Although we are a bit discontented about the Government's grudging attitude, we accept that that is the way of these things. Let me say—and it may be the last thing that I say on this Bill—that progress on the less controversial areas has been rewarding: some people's lives will certainly be changed, or at least touched, by the slight improvements that our creative approach has secured.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Clause 86

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Lords amendment: No. 104 in page 54, line 31, leave out from beginning to ("also") in line 32 and insert
("The following provisions of this Act, namely—

(a) this section;


(b) sections (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), 15(1) and (2), 21 (Sentence for murder) (Courts duty on passing sentence of life imprisonment) and 23(3) and (4); and
(c) Schedule (Reciprocal enforcement of certain orders), paragraph 6 of Schedule 5, paragraph 5 of Schedule 7, paragraph 15A of Schedule 10 to this Act and, so far as relating to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, Schedule 12").

Amendment made to the Lords amendment: (a), in paragraph (6), leave out from '21' to 'and' in line 6—[Mr. John Patten.]

Lords amendment No. 104, as amended, agreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I am satisfied that Lords amendment No. 115 imposes a charge on the public revenue, such as is required to be authorised by a resolution of the House. Such a charge has not been so authorised; accordingly, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Standing Order No. 76, the amendment is deemed to be disagreed to.

Subsequent Lords amendments agreed to.

Lords amendment No. 162 disagreed to.

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up Reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their amendments.—[Mr. Kirkhopel.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Matthew Carrington, Mrs. Llin Golding, Mr. Greg Knight, Mr. John Patten and that Mr. Barry Sheerman be Members of the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Ordered,
That Three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Ordered,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Kirkhope.]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Child Benefit

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Michael Jack): I beg to move,
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.
The draft regulations lay the foundations for the October increases in child benefit—the second this year —announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his Budget statement on 19 March. They provide for child benefit to rise, from 7 October this year, by £1 per week for the eldest eligible child—from £8·25p to £9·25p—with an increase to £7·50p per week for all remaining children. It is the first part of a process which will ensure that every family will gain from the increases, including those on income support and family credit and those in receipt of national insurance benefits with child dependency increases.
The child benefit increases are being made in addition to the extra £l per week that each family has been receiving since April and, with our undertaking to index link from next April, they confirm our commitment to child benefit, which we see as the cornerstone of our policies for family support. The changes bring our expenditure on child benefit this year to £5·3 billion, or almost a tenth of total social security spending. Yet that is only a part of the total package of benefit expenditure on families, which amounts to more than £11 billion. I am sure that hon. Members would like to know that that is an average of £30 per week for each family with children.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: Is my hon. Friend aware that there can be few hon. Members who are more delighted than I that the Government are taking this proper line on child benefit and giving the benefit to mothers, who so urgently need it? We have fought this battle for many years, and it is delightful that the Government are being so positive.

Mr. Jack: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellet-Bowman), who represents the neighbouring constituency to mine, for her assiduous support. Her message will have been noted by all mothers.
I am sure that the House would like to know what the increases will mean for individual families. For more than 40 per cent.—those with only one child—it will mean that from October their income from child benefit, which is tax free, will increase by £2 per week, which is a rise of more than 27 per cent. compared with the position before April. For a family with two children, child benefit will be increased by more than 15 per cent.—from £14·50 to £16·75 per week, equivalent to £72·50 per month or £870 per year. To produce the same effect through wages for people paying standard rate tax and national insurance contributions would require them to earn an additional£1,300 gross per year—about an extra £25 per week. Those increases, paid to mothers, will bring to nearly 7 million families worthwhile extra help with the costs of bringing up their children.
The measures have been warmly welcomed. I believe that I can sum up the mood of those who have campaigned


for them by quoting Ms. Fran Bennett of the Child Poverty Action Group. In a letter to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, she said:
I am writing on behalf of CPAG to say how delighted we were that this year's Budget included announcements on both immediate increases in child benefit and the government's longer term intentions.
The regulations underline the philosophy of all post-war Governments of accepting the need for sharing between parents and the state the financial responsibility for bringing up children. Child benefit goes to all families with children as a recognition of the fact that at all levels of income they face greater expenditure than other families. For those families who need it, this universal provision is supplemented by extra help through the income-related benefits. We will be bringing forward further regulations to ensure that those groups, too, will benefit from the October increases in child benefit.
The Government did not forget those groups in drafting their child benefit proposals, but the Opposition did when they presented their alternative Budget proposals. The House may recall that this matter was spotted only through the astuteness of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in the debate on family hardship on 13 March. He highlighted the inconsistency between the costings and stated objectives on child benefit in the so-called shadow Budget—long may it remain so—and it was only his kindness in pointing this out which enabled the Labour party to amend its pledge to include families on income-related benefits.
This continuing recognition of the needs of the less well-off families lay at the heart of our 1988 social security reforms. At a time when the majority of families were benefiting from rising earnings, we recognised that some people, through no fault of their own, had not yet fully shared in the nation's increasing prosperity. We decided, therefore, that the least well-off families—those on income-related benefits—should be one of our main priorities for extra help. Instead of just universally increasing child benefit, we made substantial extra help available to those families, over and above the annual increases required to maintain the value of their benefits. Those families are now better off than they would have been simply relying on an increase in child benefit.
When we introduced income support, we provided a system which was flexible and which allowed us to respond swiftly and sensitively to the changing needs of families and individuals. I will give the House an example of the way in which that works. We enhanced the age-related provision for children by introducing a family premium, including a special premium for lone parents. In addition, there is now a premium of £16·65 per week for a disabled child, on top of the basic family premium of £7·95.
With the help of family credit—our other major change—people can move off income support to become better off in work. The success of this benefit is mirrored in the fact that we now have a record caseload of 328,000 people on family credit. We believe that this year we shall spend more than £500 million. Compared with 1978–79, in real terms that represents more than eight times the expenditure on family credit's predecessor, family income supplement. It goes to more than three times the number

of people receiving FIS, with the average award of more than £30 a week being some three times higher in real terms.
Not content with that, we shall make family credit more accessible by reducing the hours of eligibility from 24 to 16. That is a further commitment to helping families on low incomes.
When we came to office, we deliberately set out to increase people's ability to earn more, to retain more of what they earned and to contribute to the general prosperity. Working families with children have benefited from the Government's policies of reducing the rates of income tax and simplifying the system of national insurance contributions. A family on average male earnings, for example, has seen the real value of its take-home pay increase by a third since 1978–79.
The Opposition continue to concentrate on headline figures when talking about child benefit, but they completely overlook the fact that the money from not uprating child benefit has been spent on extra help for the poorest families with children when better-off families were benefiting from increased earnings and lower rates of taxation. The Opposition have conveniently ignored the fact that, from October, the total support for families with children will in a full year be greater than if we had merely indexed child benefit. From October, the additional real-terms help that we have provided since 1987–88 will be worth a massive £500 million in a full year.
The Opposition also fail to appreciate that families mean more than families with children. There are families with, perhaps, an elderly member or someone who is sick or disabled. They, too, have considerable needs. We have considered those families and have made available, for example, an extra £200 million for older and disabled pensioners through the 1989 measures. An extra £80 million was made available in April for those aged between 65 and 74.
I mentioned the need to balance the help that we provide for all families and the help for low-income families. In previous years, with mainstream family incomes arising, our judgment was that it was right to concentrate resources on the less well-off familes through the income-related benefits. This year, after careful consideration, we decided that the time was right to look after families with children generally. The extra £1 per week child benefit which all families have been receiving since April recognises the additional costs faced by all families with children, and it is a clear signal of our continuing commitment to the benefit. The October increases build on the April improvements and, as I said, we shall bring forward regulations to ensure that these increases are carried through the benefits system so that families at all income levels will gain from them.
My hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster adverted to the fact that we should be proud of the help that we give to families with children. Not only do United Kingdom families benefit from the most comprehensive income support system in Europe, and from having family credit which is unique in its construction in Europe in giving help to the families of the employed and the self-employed on low wages, but we compare very favourably in our overall provision of basic child benefit. There is a problem in making an accurate European comparison because of the range and complexity of financial support for families in different European countries, but I must draw the House's attention to the fact that several Community countries


have extra conditions for entitlement to child benefit. For example, Germany, Greece and Italy have means tests, and Belgium, Italy, Portugal and Spain link eligibility to insurance status, so not all families can qualify.
Therefore, although it is true that all European Community countries have a cash benefit equivalent to child benefit, many have additional qualifying criteria which do not apply in the United Kingdom. However, in cash terms alone, if we consider the 40 per cent. plus families in this country with only one eligible child, in July 1990 we ranked fourth in our child benefit provision for such a child up to the age of five. This year, we are increasing that provision by more than 25 per cent. Perhaps it is worth drawing the House's attention to the fact that in France there is no such provision. If replicated here, that would remove entitlement to child benefit from those 40 per cent. plus United Kingdom families.
I hope that I have demonstrated to the House how we have developed a balance between universal and income-related benefits and how we have balanced help to families with children. Nor have families without children been ignored. The draft regulations will increase child benefit from October and, as I said, we shall introduce further regulations to carry those increases through into other benefits so that all families with children will gain. Those regulations are for the benefit of our children and for the families responsible for their upbringing. I commend them to the House.

Mr. Michael Meacher: We are told that there is more joy in heaven over one sinner who repenteth than over 99 just men. In that context, I welcome the order and the Government's final change of heart on the question of child benefit, although I somewhat suspect their motives.
The Opposition sought to have the regulations debated on the Floor of the House for three main reasons. The first was to condemn the astonishing convolutions and inconsistencies in Government policy which have plagued child benefit over the past four years. The second was to point up the large shortfall in child benefit which still exists after the zig-zags in what is euphemistically called "child benefit policy". The third was to press again the view that child benefit be allowed to play its full and unique role in combating child poverty.
In June 1987, as everyone now knows only too well, the Conservative manifesto stated:
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now, and direct to the mother.
Four months later, the Government broke the pledge. The former Secretary of State for Social Security, who made a distinctive contribution to social policy by denying that poverty existed, announced that child benefit would be frozen. In October 1988, the then Secretary of State repeated the freeze on the ground that benefits needed to be targeted. It did not seem to occur to him that, in the autumn of 1988, at the height of the boom, it was hardly consistent to reject child benefit because a small fraction of it went to the wealthy while lavishing unlimited public subsidies on some of the richest people in the country in the form of mortgage interest tax relief.
In October 1989, the present Secretary of State again repeated the freeze. He sought to justify it on two main grounds. The first was:

it helps only those who do not receive income support and family credit."—[Official Report, 25 October 1989; Vol. [58, c. 846.]
That is the opposite of what the Government, in the form of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary, are saying today. When the hapless Secretary of State tries to defend the indefensible Thatcherite dogma of freeze, he says one thing. When he is trying to win an election, he says the reverse, and all in the space of two years.
The other main ground cited by the Secretary of State was that it was better to concentrate extra help on less well-off families. That ignores the important fact that child benefit has vastly better coverage of less well-off families than a device such as family credit could ever have.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned family credit. Will he clarify his own party's policy on family credit? Is it to abolish it o r to let it wither on the vine, as the hon. Member for Holborn, and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) said?

Mr. Meacher: It is neither. The hon. Gentleman should read our policy document. We have made it clear that we, unlike the Conservative party until an election heaves into sight, believe in child benefit, which is what our debate is about.
I was making the point that half a million mothers in households with an income of less than £100 a week receive child benefit—and it goes to them virtually 100 per cent. —and that more than 2 million mothers in households with incomes of less than £200 a week also receive it. That represents a far greater body of families in near poverty than the fewer than one third of a million—I hope that the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnha m) will take this point on board—who manage to obtain family credit. There is a low take-up rate and there is still some doubt about exactly what it is. It is probably around 60 per cent. to 65 per cent., but the overall numbers are small. Even above the level that I have mentioned, child benefit remains well targeted. Some three quarters of all Government expenditure on child benefit goes to fami lies with incomes below the average. That is very important.
Three successive years of Tory freeze have left their mark, especially on poorer families. They reduced the value of tax-free income provided by child benefit and thus increased the impact of taxation on all families with children. They had a particularly severe effect on large families and they gradually forced more and more families who previously had been able to maintain their independence to apply for more means-tested benefits. They have slowly but surely intensified the poverty trap.
Three successive years of Tory freeze of child benefit have also left their mark on the Treasury. Its cumulative saving over those years reached £1·2 billion at current prices in 1990–91.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Miss Ann Widdecombe): indicated dissent.

Mr. Meacher: It is no good the Under-Secretary of State shaking her head. Those are the official Government figures.
One might be forgiven for thinking that successive Secretaries of State, when they announced or re-announced a freeze, failed to announce that the Treasury made a killing on each of those occasions and that that was the driving force behind the policy.
In October 1990 with a general election mooted for the middle of 1991, the Government got cold feet about the increasing unpopularity of their freeze policy, particularly as inflation was then heading towards 11 per cent. The Secretary of State then announced that he would increase child benefit, but only for the first child. There would be £1 extra for the first child, but nothing for the other children. He tried to justify that by suggesting that priority was needed for the first child to compensate the mother for the loss of earnings after giving up work. He has failed to explain how an extra £1 a week in child benefit compensates for the loss of perhaps £100 a week in earnings. We would still be interested in an explanation of that.
That was not the only thing that was wrong with the new policy. The £1 was clawed back from widows and the poorest families on income support so that those who needed it most received nothing. So much for a Government who have spent the last three years obsessively proclaiming the merits of targeting. They gave the child benefit increase to the rich and denied it to the poorest—[Interruption.] I can understand why Conservative Members might be embarrassed about that, but the first £1 increase did exactly what I have said.
As the spring 1991 general election faded in the depths of the recession and Government eyes began to fasten on October 1991, the Government had another try. After no increase for three years, we have now had two increases in a single year. I can only say that the children of this country should demand annual elections, because they do wonders for child benefit under this Government.
It is now proposed that there will be a further £1 increase for the first child in October plus a derisory 25p for second and subsequent children. Twenty-five pence is about a third of the price of a school meal. That is the only increase in child benefit that 5 million children who happen not to be the eldest child in a family have received in child benefit over the past four years.
This time round, the child benefit will go to those on income support. That is welcome as far as it goes. However, perhaps the Secretary of State could explain the inconsistency of giving a £1 increase to the first child in April which is clawed back from families on income support and then giving another £1 increase in October only six months later which is not clawed back from families on income support.
Throughout the past four years, the Government have treated child benefit not as help for families, but as an ideological pawn in their battle against the welfare state. The only consistency in the wild and rapid changes of policy has lain in the Government's perception of their own electoral self-interest.
After all those convolutions and gyrations of policy, child benefit is still far short of being restored to its real value in April 1987. Even for the first child, it will still be 30p a week short of that level, but for all subsequent children the shortfall will be considerable—just over £2 a week. For an average three-child family, that still represents a loss of £228 a year.
The first priority is and must remain to make good for all children the losses over recent years. The Labour party remains committed to restoring the real value of child benefit at its 1987 level for all children. We shall make

those substantial increases for all children, particularly for second and subsequent children, without deductions for children on income support.

Mr. Thurnham: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Meacher: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman just once more because no one else is seeking to intervene.

Mr. Thurnham: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making the Labour party's policy a little clearer than it was. Would he like to put a cost figure on that pledge?

Mr. Meacher: Certainly—£695 million.
Having stated again that overriding priority from which the Government still fall far short, I wish to raise two specific points of detail about the order. The first is whether the Government will now reconsider the long-term structure of child benefit, having produced what can be described only as lop-sided after a series of panicky, last-minute compromises. It certainly does not reflect any social reality. A recent cross-section poll of hon. Members —it certainly did not include me—found that only 12 per cent., two thirds of whom presumably must be Conservative Members, supported the present structure of child benefit. Many other countries in the EEC have child benefit or its equivalent which increases with the number of children in a family or with the age of the child, but none which actually decreases it according to the number of children.
How do the Government justify the oddity? The Under-Secretary of State made no attempt to talk about that matter. Perhaps he could give some assistance with the Government's view if it is not quite as cynically expedient as I believe it to be. If there is any rationale behind it, we would like to know what it is. When the Government consider the matter in a more measured manner, what more considered proposals do they have for the longer-term shape of child benefit?
Secondly—this is related to my first question—what will be the mechanism of index linking in future? From an answer that was given in the Official Report of 22 May, it appears that the Government intend to inflation-proof the overall amount spent on child benefit rather than index each rate. Some of us had automatically assumed that it would be each rate, but that appears not to be. If it is the Government's intention to index the overall amount rather than each separate rate, that would be undesirable. If the Government wished to alter the balance—it certainly needs to be altered—between the two rates, it would be much better if that were done by over-indexing one or other of the rates. That is a much better way to get the matter into balance while still ensuring that at least both rates will maintain their real value over time.
After three years of the freeze and neglect that we have seen a further year of patch up and make do, which is riddled with inconsistencies, the order, although it is certainly welcome as far it goes, raises more questions than it answers. We want an explanation about that in the wind-up speech. The fundamental point is that, until the real value of child benefit has been fully restored for all children and the commitment to its future made absolute, child benefit policy will remain a major difference between the parties which will be resolved only at the coming election.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: I wish to speak briefly because I am not satisfied with the speech of the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who did not make Labour party policy clear and did not answer the point about family credit. He said that the Labour party's policy was not to abolish it or to let it wither on the vine. What is the Labour party's policy and where does it leave the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson), who said that the party's policy was to let family credit wither on the vine? Do the Labour party spokesmen have two different policies? Why does not the hon. Gentleman come clean and state his party's policies?
Why have Labour's statements on child benefit produced a gradual climb down from its own original statement in its paper, "Meet the Challenge, Make the Change"? That paper stated:
we will increase Child Benefit in our first year by a substantial amount which will more than make good the loss in value through this Parliament.
In its policy document, "Looking to the Future", the Labour party said that an increase in child benefit would be implemented
at least to make up the loss in value".
Now, we hear that it is to be restored to the 1979 level, at a cost of £695 million, which shows that the original statements were not thought through properly—a characteristic of Labour party policy on this subject. The Labour party has obviously not thought through its ideas on family credit.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West dismissed family credit as going to only a small number of families. Eight times as many families have benefited from family credit than benefited from family income supplement—390,000 families receive it, which is not a small number. The benefit of family credit is that it helps families to stay in work, whereas the policies of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, such as a national minimum wage, would throw people out of work. The Labour party obviously prefers to have people out of work than in work. Why does riot the Labour party acknowledge the benefits of the family credit scheme, go with it, and say that it supports the Government policy, which has been successful?
We have been able to make some increase in child benefit, but, because it is not targeted as well as family credit, we place an emphasis on family credit in helping people to stay in work. We do not agree with the policies of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, which would increase taxes and throw people out of work.

Mr. Meacher: If the hon. Gentleman still opposes a national minimum wage, will he retract the statement that he made not long ago, that it would be much better if the whole of Britain reflected sweatshop conditions?

Mr. Thurnham: If the hon. Gentleman looks at what I said in my speech, he will see that I was talking about wealth shops. He should not confuse a question with a statement in a speech, and should read the Hansard report. He would then see that I was advocating wealth shops.
The difference between Government policies and Labour party policies is that we want people to be in work, whereas the Labour party want people out of work. I cannot see the benefit of that. The hon. Gentleman would do better to argue with his fellow party members about the disadvantages of a national minimum wage, and climb down from that policy, because it is getting him nowhere.

He should look at Government policies, which target benefits to help people back into work instead of taking them out of work.

Mr. Archie Kirkwood: The proposed increase is welcome, but it has been a long time coming. It is right for the House to take a moment or two to consider the consequences that flow from the changes introduced by the regulations.
There are three major sectors that deserve additional scrutiny. I am sure that the Minister will acknowledge that there will still be real losses for second and subsequent children in relation to the amount of money that they could otherwise have expected had child benefit been fully indexed. The additional element for first children needs to be considered carefully, because it is a fundamental change and the Government's future policy in that respect must be analysed.
The mechanism for index linking the new system is potentially problematic, if my understanding of it is right. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) was right to say that the Government's policy on that issue does not bear examination because of the changes that have been made in the past five or more years. That will be a matter of some concern and will be debated publicly at the general election.
Child benefit remains by far the most effective way to target families in poverty. That is my experience as a constituency Member of Parliament and my opinion as someone who tries to study such matters as effectively and diligently as I can. Will the Minister confirm that the increases to £9·25 and £7·50 in October will also have a knock-on effect for claimants of other benefits, rather than being deducted from other benefits as such increases have been in the past? 1 understand that orders are in the pipeline to implement that measure between now and October. Although we may debate the issue when the orders are published, if the increased payments are to be made in October we have little time to study the orders.
I should be interested to know how that will be done because when one considers the complications involved in ring fencing the child benefit increases, I doubt whether it will be as easy as it sounds. If the Department of Social Security has given any thought to how it will approach that, I shall rest a little easier in my bed tonight if the Minister will say a word about it. I welcome the fact that the increases will be ring-fenced. Because of the increases in child support personal allowances, it will benefit principally parents under the age of 25. That is good news because that group of claimants has suffered from some of the recent changes in Government policy, and they are hard-pressed and in urgent need of support.
The October increases will still leave all children with less benefit in real terms than in 1987, and second and subsequent children will receive substantially less. First children need an additional 30p a week and second and subsequent children need an extra £2·05. If the level of child benefit had been properly uprated to 1991–92 levels, it would have been increased to £9·55. That is a substantial amount of money, and a substantial loss will have been suffered over the years by families who need it.
As for the new structure, what was the Government's thinking in moving in that direction? The differential of £1·75 a week is welcome, but what does the future hold in


respect of differentials? What examination did the Department undertake before it moved in that direction? Was consideration given to alternatives? Were the results of the family household survey analysed? Why have the Government brought forward an increase in this way? There have been a number of conflicting rationalisations and justifications for making the move. First, we heard that the increase for the first child was necessary because of start-up costs. If a couple experienced start-up costs when the first child came along, it was daft to have abolished the maternity grant under the Social Security Act 1986.
Start-up costs were the first justification for considering giving extra support for the first child in the family. However, in some uprating statements the Secretary of State and other Ministers have said that that was not the rationale behind the change, and that the presence of any child, rather than the number of children, was the factor that had decided the Government to move in that direction. We should have a public debate about such significant changes. If the Government have evidence and have conducted analyses which lead them to that conclusion, it is right that they should share their thinking with the House.
The announcement was made in the Budget statement, which is all very well and good. I understand that Treasury Ministers have to go into purdah and do not tell anyone what they are thinking until they release the contents of the Red Book. However, we should be given some insight into the reasons behind making this move.
In the meantime, the priority as regards resources should be to try to do everything possible, and for Social Security Ministers to try to make good the losses for all children—losses sustained as a result of cuts in the past five or six years.
Finally, I have several questions about the consequences of the index-linking of child benefit. The Government have made a commitment that inflation proofing will take place from April 1992. However, the hon. Member for Oldham, West mentioned inflation-proofing the overall amount and it is right that the House should ask the Government to explain exactly what is involved in that. If one inflation proofs the amount of money, but gives discretion to the Secretary of State to allocate money within the increased total it introduces some uncertainty into the type of indexing that we may be confronting. It would be far simpler if the Government made an early commitment that they will index each rate, so that there is no doubt about that. Otherwise, people will not be able to make any sense of what faces them.
Once the system for indexing of increases in child benefit is up and running, what period of time will be used, because the annual retail prices index runs from September to September, but these increases will be introduced in October? Will the Minister clarify the confusion that exists in my mind by saying a few words about that?
Finally—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: For the second time.

Mr. Kirkwood: Finally, twice—the hon. Gentleman is quite right, this is the last "finally". What changes, if any, will this make to the Secretary of State's statutory duty

—placed upon him in section 63 of the Social Security Act 1986—to review all the factors and circumstances relating to child benefit, before he decides whether to increase it? Is there a change in that? If not, it would be good if we were told that that was the case.
Finally, for the third time—[Laughter.] I was just testing. Do the Government intend to introduce inflation-proofed index-linked guarantees into primary legislation, or will they rely on a series of secondary statutory instruments? If this is a new Government policy, let them give a copper-bottomed guarantee that they will take the early opportunity of next year's social security Bill —because there is one every year—to try to enshrine—

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Not this year.

Mr. Kirkwood: If the Secretary of State is complaining about lack of legislation for his Department, he is complaining unnecessarily. If there is a social security Bill next year, will the Government take the opportunity to enshrine the promise that they will index link child benefit into primary legislation, so that there can be no hedging of bets in the future?

Mr. Graham Allen: And finally, in this brief but instructive week in politics, we have seen the great contrasts that exist under the Conservative Administration. We have seen the results of the privatisation of the electricity industry, with massive profits being announced this week by the East Midlands electricity company. In addition, we have seen the fat salaries that have been paid out, most notably this week to the chairman of British Gas.
In contrast, this packed House, with its packed Press Gallery, is now considering child benefit and social security regulations. On the one hand, there is privilege, with individuals and organisations raking in thousands and thousands of pounds, while on the other hand, we are faced with the beneficiaries—if they can be called that—of the regulations, which give the princely increase in child benefit of 25p per week to the second-born child, with a £1 increase to the first-born child, whom I have referred to as the Eastbourne child, given that the increase was first announced prior to that famous by-election.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) asked, what does 25p buy? Most mothers would say that it does not buy a heck of a lot—not even a bar of chocolate these days.

Mr. Meacher: Don't spend it all at once.

Mr. Allen: My hon. Friend says, "Don't spend it all at once," but it is very easy to spend it all at once because even £1 will hardly pay for an average loaf and pack of butter. People will hardly be rejoicing in the streets at that miserly increase. However, even the increase—small as it is—is due more to the likelihood of a general election than to any great generosity on the part of the Government.
Let us analyse the Conservative Government's record on child benefit. Better still, let us ask British mothers about it. They will say that the purchasing power of child benefit has been reduced throughout the lifetime of this Government. Clearly, child benefit has not been safe in their hands. Even after the much trumpeted U-turn on child benefit, the child benefit for all children—first-born,


second-born and any others—is worth less than at the time of the last general election. Even after the increase, it is now worth 30p less for the first child and £2·05 less for all the other children. Using the 1987 figures, that represents a loss over a year of £154·70 for a two-child family. If we use 1985 as the base, child benefit would now have to be £10 per week to maintain its value.
We have a Government who can waste billions of pounds trying to prop up the poll tax. I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) is in his place. The Government have also wasted billions of pounds encouraging people to opt for private pensions—[Interruption.] As I have said, I am glad that at least one Sheffield Member is present. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Patnick) is not, but in any case, I see far too much of him in Committee on the Child Support Bill. The Government are also wasting billions of pounds on other ideological lunacies, yet they cannot find the relatively far smaller sums to maintain the value of child benefit, which is the main benefit for this country's children.
The Government appear totally confused about their policy. They seem to be asking, "Shall we keep child benefit or not? Shall we let it wither on the vine or index-link it?" The Government's changes of position continue to mock and to abuse the 1987 Conservative manifesto pledge, which was quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West:
Child benefit will continue to be paid as now".
Never has such a catch-all been used to catch so much. At least under the former Prime Minister all Ministers knew what they had to do—they just had to obey their orders. Now, however, in the era of indecision and dithering, the child benefit system appears to have been designed by a committee. At the moment, we are unique in Europe in having a two-tier system, in which the second and subsequent children are valued at £1·75 per week less than the first child. All of them receive less than they did before the benefit was frozen by this Administration. The larger the family, the larger the loss.
The Government's family policy owes more to the scissors and paste of the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major) than to long-term principle. As the Family Policy Studies Centre understated:
the rationale of the new structure is unclear.
It deserves a medal for describing the position in such terms.
Even the return to inflation-linking in April 1992 is edged with uncertainty. It is not the £7·50 and £9·25 but the overall amount spent on child benefit that will be linked to inflation. That is as if to underline the Government's lack of confidence that they have got the differential between the first and second child right and their belief that at some stage they will need to adjust or even scrap the differential. The Opposition would certainly support any measures to scrap the differential and level up child benefit to a reasonable level again.
Before next July, the next Labour Government will be in office and we will restore child benefit to its 1987 levels. Currently, that would carry a value of £9·55. That will be for all children. We will end the discrimination between children in the same family. We believe that child benefit is the best way to help families with children. It is better targeted than means-tested benefits because it reaches all the people whom it is intended to help. As it is not withdrawn when income rises, it does not create a poverty

trap and lock low-paid families into poverty incomes. It does not penalise mothers for taking paid employment when it is vital for them to do so in the labour market of the 1990s. Most importantly, child benefit helps to prevent child poverty and gives a subsidy to families at a time when their needs are greatest.
These shameful increases in child benefit have been levered out of the Government by impending electoral catastrophe, rather than a caring and thoughtful assessment of the needs of children and mothers. Labour will restore child benefit to its rightful place and its rightful level.

Mr. Jack: To listen to the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Allen) is to listen to a travesty of a description of accurate policy-making. I reminded him and his hon. Friends that it was my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who had to point out the failings of Labour policy and its shadow Budget. Lurking somewhere in the remarks made to the House this evening by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and the hon. Member for Nottingham, North, there seemed to be yet another shadow spending pledge. I am sure that when we examine the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, West, we will find that his statements go further than the simple pledge that his party has made. I shall examine his words in great detail.
There is no dithering on this side of the House on policy. The hon. Member for Oldham, West accused us of making savings in some way. I find it amazing that he seems to wish not to listen to the simple message of the £500 million of extra spending by the Government on families with low incomes since the changes in 1988. I can certainly give him a blow-by-blow account of where some of that money has gone. We made £200 million available to less well-off families in April 1988. In April 1989, another £70 million and in April 1990 another £70 million was made available. The list goes on. It is a roll of honour of which we are proud, and I am proud to put it on the record tonight in replying to the hon. Gentleman's comments.
One of the themes running through the speeches made by hon. Members was the basis on which we are increasing child benefit both in April and, under the terms of the order, in October. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State decided that the right balance was, with effect from April 1991, to recognise the additional costs faced by families by paying the extra £1 of child benefit to the first child. Clearly, the major impact on a family's budget is when the first child arrives. It was in pursuit of dealing with that that my right hon. Friend reviewed child benefit in both April and October. As I said in my opening speech, some 40 per cent. of families in Britain have one child. I also alluded to how the change in benefit would affect two and three-child families.
Hon. Members have asked about our policy on uprating. I reiterate that we are pledged to increase the new rates of child benefit in line with movement in the retail prices index each year, starting in April 1992. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will carry out his statutory duty to review the level of child benefit at the appropriate time in the uprating statement he will announce the allocation of the individual amounts between the eldest eligible child and other children. In


answer to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) I should not like to go further than that because I would not like to anticipate the views of my hon. Friends. However, the policies were clearly stated in a parliamentary answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) on 22 May.
The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire also asked how the rest of the package would be introduced. That will be done by regulations subject to a negative resolution. I shall write to him about the details of precisely how that will be done.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West, in contrast to my hon. Friend the Member for North-East (Mr. Thurnham), chided and perhaps criticised us for our policy. He suggested that in some way we have been penny-pinching to poorer families. Tonight, we have demonstrated the additional help that we have given. The hon. Member for Oldham, West always seems to forget that the rates of income support and family credit have increased at times when child benefit has not been increased. The hon. Gentleman should study those figures carefully.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West also spoke about poverty statistcs. I can but draw his attention to a letter published in The Guardian by my right hon. Friend in response to his outburst on poverty statistics. The hon. Gentleman has been found wanting in his use of those statistics. He should not chide the Government too much because the recent report from the Select Committee on Social Services on low incomes revealed that, using 1981 prices held at constant levels, the numbers below half average incomes fell in real terms from 2.89 million people in 1987 to 2·77 million in 1988. That demonstrates an

improvement in overall standards of living and some of the dangers of using the statistics with which the hon. Gentleman chooses to chastise us.

Mr. Meacher: If the Parliamentary Under-Secretary has unwisely chosen to debate statistics, will he deny that, according to the Government's own publication "Households below Average Incomes" the number of households that are below half-average income doubled between 1979 and 1987? Will he also accept that in the Government's 1987 publication the lowest decile was found to have had a fall—

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Decile?

Mr. Meacher: The lowest tenth of the population—for ignorant Conservative Members. That group's income fell by 5·7 per cent. Does the Minister accept that that is the Government's figure? Perhaps he will apologise to the House for the fact that that can happen at a time when the income of the rest of the population has increased by about 30 per cent.

Mr. Jack: When the hon. Gentleman has the courtesy to apologise for his inaccurate use of the statistics given to a Select Committee, perhaps I will respond in kind to the points that he has put to me.
In the brief time available to me, I have tried to deal with the main themes raised in the debate. The House and outside bodies welcome the Government's commitment to child benefit increases now and in the future. I commend the regulations to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment No. 2 Regulations 1991, which were laid before this House on 7th June, be approved.

Fish Farming

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the matter of the Scottish salmon farming industry, the outlook of which is increasingly serious. A brief look at the history of salmon farming reveals that it started more than 20 years ago and in the past decade it has witnessed spectacular growth. Its annual output is valued at £140 million while exports amount to £55 million. There is great potential for growth. Of the capital investment of £120 million, 25 per cent. has come from Highlands and Islands development board assistance, with the rest coming from the private sector. I am sure that the Minister approves of that. The industry has a research and development programme, which I should like to see increased substantially. I shall return to that.
Of fundamental importance are the 6,300 jobs that the industry has created. Of special concern to me and my colleagues who represent constituencies with fish-farming interests are the jobs that have been created in the highlands and islands.
My support for the fish-farming industry is based on the contribution that it has made to the lives of those who live in the areas where it is located. It provides employment for viable communities in isolated areas. It sustains schools, shops and, above all, employment for people such as crofters and small family farmers, who form the backbone of the rural economy. These people sustain, especially in the highlands and islands, important cultures, traditions and values.
Salmon farming has probably replaced forestry as a source of employment. When the Forestry Commission was first established, one of its purposes was to provide jobs for those who could not sustain a living off the land. For salmon farming, however, the reality now is a far cry from the promise of the past. There is a serious crisis, with a consequent loss of confidence in the industry. There have been job losses and forced sales, especially of small fish farms. In 1989, the European Community market price for salmon collapsed from a farmgate figure of £1·65 per pound to only £1.
I have a letter from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, in which it is estimated that 56 companies have been sold or closed between 1988 and 1989. That organisation believes that all large and small companies in the industry have been seriously weakened. Without an early remedy within the European salmon market, the Scottish salmon farming industry will not survive as we know it.
In Lewis and Harris in the Western Isles, 18 companies have ceased to trade. That has affected the employment of 90 to 100 people. Co Comunn Na Hearach, Co Comunn Na Pairc and Western Isles Salmon—to list only three—were all community-based companies. They were local employers run by local people.
I received a letter today from a croft-based operation in Daviot near Inverness, which currently is surviving. The letter states:
My croft-based operation supplies smolts to ongrowing farmers on the West Coast and Shetland".
Clearly that involves the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). The letter continues:

I employ 8 full-time workers and 4 part time, all local, 7 of them being ex-students of Inverness College and under 25 years of age … We are a successful and profitable company producing 800,000 smolts per year. However, the market difficulties being experienced by our customers due to Norwegian dumping cause concern and put our future at risk.
He went on:
This was described to me yesterday by our main customer 'we cannot go on like this we might as well stand on the shore tearing up pound notes'.
Why has this happened? There has been a sudden and unprecedented rise in Norway's production—in fact, a doubling from 80,000 tonnes in 1988 to 160,000 in 1990. It has been dumping its excess on the world markets, selling at below its production costs and undercutting its own minimum domestic price system.
Following the 1989 EC market collapse, to which I referred earlier, an anti-dumping case was brought before the Commission. The case was proved, and an 11·4 per cent. import duty was proposed but never implemented. Meanwhile, the Americans imposed an import duty against the Norwegians, which simply compounded the problem by diverting further tonnage from the United States to the EC market.
I know that the Government are anxious to stress their record on environmental issues, and at the same time to promote high safety standards. In recent years, consumers have become acutely aware of the dangers posed by the use of chemicals in food. Certain pharmaceutical products must be bought by salmon farmers for use in aquaculture; they must be certified, and the cost of authorisation is reflected in the sale price.
Here again, there is a huge discrepancy between this and other EC countries. Our Government are failing to provide any assistance, according to a written reply that I recently received from the Scottish Office Agriculture and Fisheries Department. In Spain, authorising a new product costs the equivalent of £8; in Luxembourg, it costs the equivalent of £49; in France, the equivalent of £155. In the United Kingdom, it costs £12,000.
At the same time, the Government are spending less on research and development. Since 1980, when £2·3 million was spent on fish-farming research and development, there has been a real-terms cut of 29 per cent. The Government spent only £3 million in 1990–91. That is simply not acceptable at a time when people are increasingly worried about the possibility of fish-farm pollution around our coasts and in our inland waters. The Crown Estate Commissioners, who take their whack in rent, should contribute much more to research and development; too much profit goes straight to the Treasury.
There is also the threat posed to the industry by the Food Hygiene (Scotland) Regulations. I could not let this evening pass without repeating my plea to the Minister —a plea that I have often extended to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Strathclyde —to make allowance for the smoked salmon and fish-curing industry in Scotland. Without special exemptions applying to delivery of such products, many smokeries will go out of business, and that will have a huge effect on areas like Argyll and Bute.
To cap it all, there is the added shock of the suggestion in last week's talks that the European Free Trade Association be given access to the EC tariff-free trade area.


That must not leave the Scottish industry defenceless: we need more talks to agree a reference price. The whole issue is really a trade disagreement, not a fisheries disagreement.
What are the Government going to do about this? In the past weeks and months, the Government have received increasing representations and requests to act decisively and swiftly. That message has been carried to them by Members of Parliament and by the Scottish Salmon Growers Association. The Leader of the House told me during business questions a month ago that he had held discussions on the subject at the recent Tory party conference in Perth. Perhaps the Minister of State, who is to reply, also held such discussions.
The belief is that the Government will not give Scottish salmon farming a high priority. Appeals to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and to the Prime Minister have had little effect. As the Scottish Office Minister responsible for fisheries, the hon. Gentleman must surely realise that this is an important Scottish industry. I appreciate that he has many other tasks that take up his time, but he and his noble Friend in the other place should go to Brussels tomorrow and seek EC action on measures against Norwegian dumping and set the scene for a long-term and stable solution to the problem.
Will the Minister tell me—if not tonight, perhaps later —what rule or legislation allows Highlands and Islands Enterprise to refuse grant aid to those who are not members of the Scottish Salmon Growers Association? In Cowal in my constituency, 85 per cent. of salmon produced is not eligible for grant assistance.
I am particularly worried about the small growers, many of whom have had to pull out of the organisation simply because they cannot afford the levy. Only the large companies and the multinationals can continue to pay a fee that has risen from 1 to 3 per cent. of turnover. In addition, high interest rates guarantee that the smallest companies are hardest hit. Surely there must be a discretionary element that ensures that the right projects receive the necessary backing from Highlands and Islands Enterprise, regardless of their membership of the SSGA.
The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Scotland keep saying that to persuade the Commission to act the Government will need good evidence of the extent and impact of Norwegian imports. I must tell the Minister that we have given such evidence time and again—on 15 separate occasions since January—to the Commission, to the fisheries department at the Scottish Office and to the MAFF.
I am grateful to the Minister for having listened so patiently, and I hope that I have conveyed to him the serious nature of the situation. If the salmon fish farming industry in Scotland is to survive, it needs Government action now.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Michael Forsyth): I congratulate the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) on her success in raising this issue for debate. I know that she has taken much interest in the salmon farming industry, and I much appreciate her concern about the difficult trading conditions that are facing many fish farmers.
Salmon farming has been one of the success stories of the past decade in Scotland. The geography and environment of our western coastline and islands, with their clean, unpolluted waters and protected coastal inlets, are ideally suited to salmon farming.
From a production level of 1,000 tonnes in 1980, the industry has grown steadily year after year to an output of more than 32,000 tonnes in 1990, with a first-sale value of more than £100 million. As the hon. Lady said, the industry is a major employer, employing almost 2,000 people directly, with two to three times that number employed in related industries such as processing, packaging and transport.
I understand that some £120 million was invested in the industry during that period. As the hon. Lady pointed out, most of that money came, appropriately, from the private sector, but there has been significant Government support. Some £30 million has been provided through the Highlands and Islands development board—now Highlands and Islands Enterprise—and the European Community has also made a valuable contribution.
The problems which we face now, which the hon. Lady set out, are those of success. They stem from a rapid expansion of this young industry, an expansion which has run ahead of the increase in demand for salmon, although that has been growing by about a quarter each year in Europe. We have a problem of surplus production capacity for Atlantic salmon, and that will mean a period of—dare I say it—consolidation, even retrenchment, until supply and demand come back into balance. Our concern, of course, must be to ensure that the pain of such retrenchment should fall fairly where the cause of the problem lies.
The letter from Highlands and Islands Enterprise to which the hon. Lady referred came from Mr. Gaskell, and the hon. Lady quoted some of the points which had been made. The letter said that HIE was
convinced that without early remedy within the European salmon market, our salmon farming market will not survive as we know it
and that
the financial standing of all companies in the sector has been seriously weakened".
Those statements are not particularly helpful. What is needed is confidence in the industry and in the future.
Although Scotland produces by far the largest amount of farmed salmon in the European Community, our output is less than one quarter of Norway's. The Norwegians' figures show that between 1988 and 1990 production of farmed salmon rose from 80,000 tonnes to over 160,000 tonnes. More than 60 per cent. of that salmon is exported into the EC. Even in a market which has developed as rapidly as salmon, this was bound to have a destabilising effect.
The first signs of difficulty came in 1989 when the market price for salmon began to fall significantly and the industry saw signs that salmon from Norway was being sold in European markets at unreasonably low prices. The Scottish salmon growers, in conjunction with their Irish counterparts, alleged that the Norwegians were "dumping" salmon in EC markets and asked the Commission to intervene. As a result, as the hon. Lady said, the EC announced in February 1990 that it would mount an anti-dumping investigation. The Government supported that investigation. We did not seek—nor shall we—any "protectionist" measures for our industry. Our concern


has always been to promote an orderly expansion of this market and to ensure fair competition within the European market.
As the hon. Lady said, in August 1990, the EC announced its finding that dumping by Norwegian companies had taken place and that this had caused injury to EC producers. The Commission proposed that an anti-dumping duty of 11·4 per cent. should be levied on imports of Norwegian salmon to the Community. In the event, it became clear to the Commission that this was not supported by member states and earlier this year the Commission formally closed the anti-dumping case.
The Government, however, had been keeping in close touch with the industry and with the Commission about the outcome of this investigation. We were able to obtain assurances from the Commission and, through it, from the Norwegian Government about future market stability. The Commission undertook to monitor closely the market for farmed salmon; to initiate discussions with the Norwegians, if so requested; and to consider urgently a further anti-dumping case against Norwegian companies should the EC industry so request.
The Norwegian authorities, for their part, agreed that they would continue their programme to freeze surplus salmon production which the Norwegian industry had been funding since the beginning of 1990 and to take other measures to control what the Norwegians term "black sales"—sales outside their export sales organisation.
The Norwegian measures had a welcome effect on the EC market for salmon—prices recovered during 1990 but they have since fallen back, and in recent weeks they have fallen back to the levels that caused the industry in 1989 to raise its anti-dumping case. So it seems clear enough that we face renewed instances of Norwegian dumping of farmed salmon into Europe.
Officials of the fisheries department were in contact with the Commission throughout the early months of this year, and were present when the industry met the Commission in April to renew its protests about Norwegian dumping. We have pressed the Commission to take action, either with Norway or in respect of the EC market, to bring stability back to the market. The hon. Lady is right to highlight the importance of that.
That pressure has borne some fruit. Recent reports from Norway show that new steps have been taken to control supplies and future output. I understand that the Norwegian industry has reached agreement with a consortium of banks for a short-term loan facility of 1·6 billion kroner—about£145 million—to freeze up to 40,000 tonnes of fish this year. We also understand that action is in hand to destroy up to 20 million smolts this year, which would otherwise produce up to 40,000 tonnes of fish in 1993. These are very welcome steps which should ensure that we recover the balance between supply and demand for Atlantic salmon before too long.
However, we recognise that, as long as a large quantity of frozen salmon remains available for sale, it will be very difficult to obtain a reasonable level of prices. We are also concerned at reports from our industry that the Norwegian minimum price system, and the Norwegian's efforts to stabilise the market, are being undermined by consignments of salmon entering France at prices that are quite inconsistent with the Norwegians' minimum price.
Last week, therefore my, noble Friend the Minister for Agriculture and Fisheries at the Scottish Office, arranged to meet the Norwegian ambassador, and expressed to him

very clearly our concern that the Norwegians' efforts to achieve market stability were proving ineffective, and that we were facing again evidence of dumping of Norwegian salmon in the European market. The ambassador was asked to convey to his Government our serious concern at these developments and our intention to follow them up through the European Commission.
The hon. Lady mentioned research and development, but the figures that she gave did not tell the whole story. The Government are also carrying out work on the environmental aspects of fish farming, which will be of direct benefit to the industry. The industry has contributed over £1 million so far to fund research and development, as it should. Highlands and Islands Enterprise has provided up to £400,000 this year with the prospect of additional funding over the next two years. The Crown Estate has also contributed more than £300,000, those sums are additional to the figures that I recently provided for the hon. Lady in response to a series of written questions that she tabled.
The current Government research and development programme reflects the change in emphasis from "production" projects, which formed the majority of expenditure in the early years and which have now transferred to industry, to a greater emphasis on disease and environmental work which is vital. The Government are funding work with the industry on alternatives to Aquagard to treat sea-lice infestation, and we have high hopes of the furunculosis vaccine which was developed by our scientists in Aberdeen.
The hon. Lady mentioned the regulations covering the sending of smoked salmon through the post. I know that it is a matter of concern to her, and I can help her. The regulations have not been laid in Scotland, but following the representations that we have received, the English regulations will provide exemptions for smoked salmon being sent through the post. Research is currently being undertaken into the validity of the argument that it is necessary for smoked salmon to be sent in special containers which maintain a particular temperature. That particular difficulty has been averted and the Government were extremely grateful to the hon. Lady and to others for drawing it to our attention. My hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Monro), who I see is in his place, was especially helpful in drawing our attention to the difficulties that the industry would face.
I assure the hon. Lady that, on the dumping issues, we shall continue to work in close co-operation with the industry. I understand that the Scottish Salmon Growers Association is currently collecting details of Norwegian trading activities and alleged breaches of the undertakings given. As soon as those have been received, we shall renew our contacts with the Commission and press to develop specific measures to restore stability in the EC market for salmon—and to do so without further delay. In the meantime, we are examining the options open to the Commission to safeguard the EC market.
The future of the salmon farming industry is of great importance to the fragile economies of the north and west of Scotland, and the Government are well seized of the need for urgent and effective action to restore price stability in the European market. Achieving that stability will require action by the Commission and by the Norwegian authorities. We intend to work closely with the industry, and we shall make it abundantly clear to the Commission that we require action quickly.
The hon. Lady raised one further point about the policy on the provision of grants adopted by Highlands and Islands Enterprise towards particular small producers. That is not a matter that falls within my area of responsibility, but I am happy to give the hon. Lady an undertaking that I will ask my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, to write to her tomorrow setting out the

position on the matter. I am sure that he will want to examine with Highlands and Islands Enterprise whether the hon. Lady's suggestions can be incorporated as part of its future policy.
I hope that my remarks will reassure the hon. Lady that we are very much concerned about the problems that are arising from the dumping of salmon and that we will have no hesitation in working to ensure that they are resolved.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes past Eleven o'clock.